COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S CREW B.O.S. PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099202201211 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE J.C. VERMA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings of the ITAT on the interpretation of Section 80HHC and Section 10B were not discussed or affirmed by the High Court due to the appeal not being pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon against an order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2003-04. The dispute involved the interpretation of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically whether an assessee is debarred from excluding the export turnover and total turnover of a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for which income is claimed as exempted under Section 10B, when computing deduction under Section 80HHC. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated but was implied to be below a certain threshold for the revenue to press the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned authorities below erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which do not debar the assessee from excluding the export turnover and the total turnover of the 100% EOU unit in respect of which income has been claimed as exempted under Section 10B of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, concerning Section 80HHC and Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Submitted that in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, the appeal should not be pressed as the tax effect involved is less than `20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon .......Appellant Versus M/s Crew B.O.S. Products Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' New Delhi, in ITA No. 4164/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2003-04, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether the learned below authorities erred in interpreting the provisions of Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') which do not debar the assessee for excluding the export turn over and the total turnover of the 100% EOU unit in respect of which income has been claimed as exempted under Section 10B of the Act while computing deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act? REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circular No.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, as the tax effect involved is less than ` 20 lacs. However, he prays that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It is however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) 11.05.2016 JUDGE reema REEMA SAINI 2016.05.18 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →