M/S PERFECT FORGINGS THROUGH AMARJIT SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/373/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095712201103 April 2012Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeal was covered by its earlier judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, which was decided in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in accordance with law and in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Topman Exports. The specific finding on the computation of deduction by the Tribunal was effectively overturned by the remand, with the direction to re-compute as per the Supreme Court's ruling. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Perfect Forgings, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated June 30, 2011, passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The dispute concerned the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, specifically regarding export incentives like Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB), Duty Draw Back (DBK), and Duty Free Remission Scheme (DFRC). The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Bombay High Court's judgment in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. The High Court noted that the present appeal was covered by its previous judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, decided on March 20, 2012, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by including export incentives such as DEPB, DBK, and DFRC, in light of the judgment in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee-appellant, through its counsel Mr. Rajiv Sharma, argued that the appeal was squarely covered by the High Court's own prior judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, which allowed appeals in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue-respondent, through its counsel Ms. Savita Saxena, accepted notice and consented to the appeal being taken up for final disposal. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue beyond accepting notice and the appeal being covered by precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 3, 2012 M/s Perfect Forgings …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. J HON’BLE MR. J HON’BLE MR. J HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE USTICE USTICE USTICE ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. for the assessee-appellant.

Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for the respondent-revenue

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest

M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J. , J. , J. , J.

1.

This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenges order dated 30.6.2011, passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) deciding the issue of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on export incentive Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB); Duty Draw Back (DBK); and Duty Free Remission Scheme (DFRC) against the assessee-appellant in the light of the judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax v. v. v. v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom) , (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom) , (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom) , (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom).

2.

Notice of motion. Ms. Savita Saxena, standing counsel for the revenue-respondent, who is present in the Court, accepts notice. With the consent of the learned counsel the appeal is taken up for final disposal today itself.

3.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present appeal is squarely covered by our judgment in a bunch of appeals, rendered in the case of M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex v. v. v. v. Com Com Com Commissioner missioner missioner missioner of Income Tax of Income Tax of Income Tax of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana (ITA No. 361 of 2011, decided on 20.3.2012) 20.3.2012) 20.3.2012) 20.3.2012) wherein we have allowed the appeals in the light of the principles enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Topman Exports Topman Exports Topman Exports v. v. v. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, (2012) 3 (2012) 3 (2012) 3 (2012) 3 SCC 593 SCC 593 SCC 593 SCC 593. 4. Accordingly, the instant appeal is also allowed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra). The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Topman Topman Topman Exports (supra) Exports (supra) Exports (supra) Exports (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

(ALOK SIN ALOK SIN ALOK SIN ALOK SINGH GH GH GH) April 3 April 3 April 3 April 3, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2012

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →