COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, LDH. vs. M/S DEE KAY KNITWEARS,

ITA/172/2006HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01074858200618 July 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON,MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (Revenue) filed a review application seeking to review an order dated 18.07.2013 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The original appeal before the Division Bench was against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue sought to condone a delay of 355 days in filing the review application, which was allowed. The review application itself was filed concerning the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order. The appeal raised a question of law regarding the inclusion of premium on export quota sales in the total turnover for computing deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the review application. The Court acknowledged that the first basis on which the Division Bench had dismissed the Revenue's appeal was admittedly erroneous, as the cited case law was found to be irrelevant by both parties. However, the Court noted that the appeal was also dismissed on an independent second ground, which was the existence of a departmental circular dated 23.04.1996 clarifying the treatment of premium on export quota sales. The Court stated that it could not review the order merely because another view was possible or sit in appeal over the previous order. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that the first basis for the original order was erroneous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in including the premium on export quota sales in the total turnover for computing deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, when the same was not covered under the provisions of Section 28(iiia), (iiib), and (iiic) of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Division Bench's order dismissing their appeal was based on an incorrect premise, citing reliance on irrelevant case law (ITA No. 577 and C.O. No. 28/Chandi/2003 in ACIT v. M/s Greatways Ltd. and ITA No. 180 of 2006 in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-II v. M/s Greatways Ltd.). The Revenue also contended that the second ground for dismissal, based on a departmental circular dated 23.04.1996, was erroneous and contrary to a Delhi High Court judgment. The Revenue sought to review the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 28(iiia),Section 28(iiib),Section 28(iiic)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Review Application No. 180-CII of 2014 in ITA No. 172 of 2006 Date of Decision: 01.08.2016

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana

..Applicant-appellant

Versus

M/s Dee Kay Knitwears G.T.Road, Near Jalandhar Byepass, Ludhiana.

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

Present : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.

Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

CM No. 20244-CII of 2014

Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 355 days in filing the review application is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Review Application No. 180-CII of 2014 in ITA No. 172 of 2006

This is an application for review of an order and judgment dated 18.07.2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing the review petitioner’s appeal. Both the learned Judges having retired, the review petition is placed before us as per roster.

2.

The appeal was against an ord

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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

All 989 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →