CIT, LUDHAINA vs. M/S COMPBELL INTERNATIONAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/488/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084600200918 July 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA,MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the first question of law, concerning the inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation in turnover for Section 80HHC deduction, had already been answered against the Revenue in a co-related appeal, ITA No. 539 of 2009, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Sarin Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana, decided on the same date. In view of this agreement and the prior decision, the first question was answered in terms of that order. Regarding the second question, the Court found it to be no longer relevant in light of the answer to the first question and also considered it to be a mere question of fact, as the matter had been remanded by the first appellate authority for adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana, filed an appeal against an order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench-A. The appeal concerned assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the assessment proceedings. The dispute involved the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC. The ITAT's order directed the inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation in turnover and a fresh adjudication of direct and indirect costs attributable to trading export goods. The assessee is M/s Campbell International, Ludhiana. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's directions.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in directing the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC by including foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs. 13,22,110/- in the total turnover and export turnover? (Question of law turning on Section 80HHC) 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in directing for fresh adjudication/verification of direct and indirect costs attributable to trading export goods as per Section 80HHC, when these were calculated by the Assessing Officer based on data supplied by the assessee? (Question of mixed law and fact turning on Section 80HHC) The Revenue argued that the ITAT's directions were incorrect. The Assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the judgment notes an agreement between the counsel for the parties regarding the first question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 18, 2013. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ... Appellant v. M/s Campbell International, Ludhiana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Shri Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Rajive Bhalla

, J. (Oral): The revenue challenges order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A, Chandigarh on the following questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing to compute deduction u/s 80HHC by including foreign exchange fluctuation of Rs.13,22,110/- in the total turnover and export turnover? (ii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing for fresh adjudication/verification at direct and indirect cost attributable to trading export goods as per provisions of section 80HHC whereas, the same was calculated by the Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2013.09.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Assessing Officer as per data supplied by the assessee? Counsel for the parties agree that question No.(i) has been answered against the revenue in ITA No.539 of 2009, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. Sarin Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana, decided vide order of even date. In view of the agreement between counsel for the parties, question No.(i) is answered in terms of order of even date passed in ITA No.539 of 2009.

As regards the second question of law, in view of answer to the first question against the revenue, the second question is no longer relevant and even otherwise, a mere question of fact as the matter has simply been remanded by the first appellate authority for adjudication.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[ Rajive Bhalla ]

Judge

[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] July 18, 2013. Judge kadyan Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2013.09.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 →