Case Law Details
CIT Vs Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)
Admittedly in the instant case, the industrial undertaking of the appellant-assessee is not located in the Industrial Backward District, which has been mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note here that the first Notification was issued by the State Government on 03rd September 1997, whereas the second Notification was issued on 07th October 1997. In both the aforesaid Notifications, the District in which the industry of the assessee is located has not been mentioned as Industrially Backward District. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had set up the industry before coming into force of the Industry Notification. Therefore, the condition mentioned in Section 80-IA(2)(iv)(c) of the Act that an industrial undertaking should be located within such Industrial Backward District as the Central Government vide Notification prescribed has not admittedly been fulfilled by the assessee. In order to claim the deduction, the assessee has to satisfy the requirements mentioned under the provision, which admittedly the assessee does not fulfill. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA(2)(iv)(c) is concerned the same is sans substance.
14. It is pertinent to note here that Section 80HH and Section 80-IA(2)(iv)(c) are two different and independent provisions. The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is of no assistance to the assessee in the fact situation of the case as the aforesaid decision was based on the concession that once an area is declared to be Industrially Backward Area under Section 80HH (2) of the Act, the same has to be taken under Industrial Backward Area for the purposes of this Act. In other words, the aforesaid decision is based on the concession and there has been no deduction on the issue. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the Honb’le High Court of Rajasthan insofar as it takes a view that once the area declared as backward area under Section 80HH(2) of the Act, the same has to be taken as Industrially Backward Area for the purposes of the Act, as Section 80HH(2) and 80-IA(2)(iv)(c) are separate and independent provisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Sri. K.V. Aravind, along with Sri. Dilip, Advocates for Appellants.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
