Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.colorplus Fashions Pvt. Ltd.,C-10, Industrial Estate,Ambattur, Chennai-600 058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Colorplus Fashions Pvt. Ltd.,C-10, Industrial Estate,Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. ... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961,against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras“A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1918/Mds/05 for the assessmentyear 2001-02 dated 16.11.2007 and appeal against the order ofthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Aajaken Bhawan,121, M.G. Road, Chennai 34 in ITA.Tr.No.160 of 2004-05 dated17/5/2006 and appeal against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Campany Circle-I, Chennai inG.I./PA.NO.CX3-170/ AABCC3410D dated 27.2.2004. For Appellant:Mr.R.Sureshkumarfor Mr.T.RavikumarFor Respondent :Mr.Pushya Sitaraman (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) HeardMr.R.Sureshkumar,learnedcounselforMr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr.PushyaSitaraman, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against theorder dated 16.11.2007, passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1918/Mds/05for the assessment year 2001-02. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. This tax case appeal has been admitted on thefollowing substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in allowingdeduction under Section 80 IB when the assesseedoes not manufacture any goods by itself, but getsthe same manufactured by others on a job workbasis? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, an assessee, who gets work done by ajob worker can claim to be an industrialundertaking?” 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed theappeal filed by the Revenue following the assessee's own casein respect of the assessment year 2000-01. As against thesaid order, the Revenue had filed T.C.(A). No.1027 of 2007. 5. In T.C.(A).No.1027 of 2007, two of the substantialquestions, viz., 1 & 3, are identical to the substantialquestions framed in this appeal. The appeal filed by theRevenue was dismissed by judgment dated 03.12.2012, answeringboth the questions in favour of the assessee. The operativeportion of the judgment reads as follows:“2. The assessee is a domestic company inwhich public are substantially interested. Therelevant assessment year is 2000-2001. Thecorresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.2000and the assessee is engaged in the manufacture ofsale of garments. The Assessing Officercompleted the assessment under Section 143(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. While completing theassessment, the Assessing Officer denied thebenefit claimed under Sections 80IA/80IB.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal,following another assessee's case, namely, ITO v.Elgi Ultra Industries Limited, Coimbatore, inI.T.A.No.1631/Mds/2003,dated26.10.2005.Aggrieved by the same, both the assessee and theRevenue filed appeals before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal. The Income-Tax AppellateTribunal answered the issues in favour of theassessee ad dismissed both the appeals.Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue filed thepresent Tax Case Appeal raising the abovequestions of law. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe Revenue fairly stated that the issue involvedin this case is squarely covered by this Court'sjudgment in the case of The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Coimbatore vs. M/s.Elgi UltraIndustries Limited, Coimbatore in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.451 of 2006 and 218 and 219 of 2007,dated 10.08.2012, reported in (2012) 210 TAXMAN204 (Madras). 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe Revenue fairly stated that the issue involvedin this case is squarely covered by this Court'sjudgment in the case of The Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Coimbatore vs. M/s.Elgi UltraIndustries Limited, Coimbatore in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.451 of 2006 and 218 and 219 of 2007,dated 10.08.2012, reported in (2012) 210 TAXMAN204 (Madras). 4. It is also pertinent to note that theTribunal followed the earlier Tribunal's order,namely, M/s.Elgi Ultra Industries Limited, statedabout and against that order the Revenue filedthe appeal before this Court. In that matter,this Court answered the question in favour of theassessee and allowed the case. 5. There is no dispute that the issue issquarely covered by this Court's judgment, citedsupra. 6. Under these circumstances, following theabove judgments cited supra, the questions of lawraised herein are answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue. The Tax CaseAppeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same isdismissed. No costs.” 6. Thus, following the above judgment, this tax caseappeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of lawframed are answered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-VIII, Aajaken Bhavan, 121, M.G.Road, Chennai-34.4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I, Chennai.+ 1 cc to MR.T. Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.26534T.C.(Appeal) No.881 of 2008KJI(CO)EU(04/05/2018)