TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court clarifies Income Tax Act sections, upholds precedents, limits double deduction, defers to Supreme Court.</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA Versus EIH LTD.</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL-3, KOLKATA Versus EIH LTD. - TMI Issues: Interpretation of Sections 80HHC and 80HHD of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta addressed several legal issues concerning Sections 80HHC and 80HHD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Chapter VIA of the Act. The Court noted that the questions related to Sections 80HHC and 80HHD were previously decided in a judgment reported at 338 ITR 503. It was highlighted that the previous view of the Court remained binding on a coordinate Bench until overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the legal issues regarding Sections 80HHC and 80HHD were to be answered in line with the law established in the earlier judgment.Regarding the matter of double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the Court deliberated on whether an assessee could claim deductions under different provisions for the same income. Specifically, the issue revolved around Sections 80HHD and 80-IA of the Act. The Court referred to a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed an assessee to claim deductions under multiple heads, as long as the total deduction did not exceed the income earned under each head. However, the Court acknowledged that this issue had been referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration in a judgment reported at 380 ITR 1.While several other grounds were raised in the appeal, the Court emphasized that only legal questions could be considered under Section 260A of the Act. The Court refrained from delving into factual findings and limited the analysis to legal questions covered by previous judgments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal by following the precedent set in the judgment reported at 338 ITR 503 and directed the Assessing Officer to determine the issue of double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act in accordance with any forthcoming Supreme Court ruling resulting from the reference in the judgment reported at 380 ITR 1. The Court concluded the judgment by stating that there would be no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 