The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii Chennai-34 v. M/S.mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd., Chennai-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.6.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA TAX CASE APPEAL NO.80 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II Chennai-34...Appellant/AppellantVs M/s.Mohan Breweries & DistilleriesLtd., Chennai-2....Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 13.9.2012 made in ITA.No.1381/Mds/2012 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2008-09. ITA.No.1381/Mds/2012 against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Chennai-34 in CIT(A)-V/ITA.NO.397/10-11 order dated21.03.2012 in PAN- for the Assessment year 2008-2009.against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle– IV(3), Chennai-34 in PA.No.AAACM2415L order dated 31.12.2010for the Assessment year 2008-09. For Respondent:Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 13.9.2012 made in ITA.No.1381/Mds/2012on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 25.2.2013 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in allowing deductionunder Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Actduring the assessment year 2004-05 as theinitial assessment year? 2. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in allowing deductionunder Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Actwhen the assessee itself claimed in theassessment year 1999-2000 as the initialassessment year? And 3. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in following assessee'sown case for the earlier assessment year andin the case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills(P) Ltd. judgments which are subject matterof SLP pending before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt?" 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the substantial questions of law framed in thisappeal have been answered against the Revenue in the decision ofthis Court in case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs.ACIT [reported in (2012) 340 ITR 477] as confirmed by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in the case of ACIT Vs.Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. [reported in (2016) 76Taxmann.com 176]. 5. Following the same, this appeal is dismissed and thesubstantial questions of law are answered against the Revenueand in favour of the assessee. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarRSTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central II, Chennai-34.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V,Chennai-34.4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – IV(3), Chennai-34.TCA.No.80 of 2013RJI(CO)CS/09/09/2020