SHEENA INDUSTRIES,PANIPAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE, PANIPAT
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sheena Industries, was treated as a supporting manufacturer and claimed deduction under Section 80HHC. The ITAT and High Court initially ruled in favor of the assessee, but the Supreme Court overturned this, stating that supporting manufacturers are not on par with direct exporters for Section 80HHC benefits.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove they are direct exporters. The Tribunal, in turn, remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine this specific fact.
What were the issues?
Whether a supporting manufacturer is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC, and if so, the assessee needs to prove they are a direct exporter.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Right at the outset, it needs to be mentioned that this is an old appeal where we are facing some difficulty in accessing old records. However, from an earlier order in ITA No.3076/Del/2008 in this very same case, in the first round, an order dated 21.4.2011 is available on record, through which it is noted that there were cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue from the order of CIT(A), Karnal passed on 18.07.2008. Through that order the ITAT had interpreted the case of the assessee in his favour following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports reported in 290 ITR 323. It was held that the assessee, having supplied goods of the valu
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare LtdITA/266/20095 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The Lead Factory vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes.Karnataka · 7 Oct 2026
- Dolphin Motor Agency, Cuttack vs. Additional Commissioner Of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-Ii, CuttackOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- Devendra Singh Kanyal vs. Assistant CommissionerUttarakhand · 7 Oct 2026
- Trivitron Healthcare Private LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Division Vi CGST Central Excise Commissionerate BelapurBombay · 7 Oct 2026
- Mr Ca Mukunda vs. Mr. Ca. Shiva Prakash H SKarnataka · 7 Oct 2026