GUPTA INTERNATIONAL vs. CIT KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/174/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095492201120 July 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the assessee's counsel fairly stated that the matter was covered against the assessee by a previous order of the same Court dated 18.4.2011 in ITA No. 469 of 2010, Asin Exim International v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, Punjab. In that judgment, it was held that if a deduction under Section 80IA had been taken, a deduction under Section 80HHC was not admissible in view of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(9) of the Act. This decision followed an earlier judgment in Friends Castings (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gupta International, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the ITAT Delhi "C" Bench for the assessment year 2002-03. The appeal was consolidated with another appeal (ITA No. 175 of 2011) due to common questions of law. The core of the dispute revolves around the assessee's claim for deductions under Section 80HHC, which the revenue contested. The High Court was to decide on the interpretation of various sections and the constitutionality of certain amendments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80HHC read with section 80IA(9) read with section 80IB(13), the Tribunal erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the provisions of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, by bringing third and fourth proviso to section 80HHC retrospectively, are unconstitutional and against Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and need to be quashed? (Question of law) 3. Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 148, the same are applicable in a case where a substantive provision has been brought in the statute retrospectively? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in restricting its deductions under Section 80HHC. It also challenged the constitutionality of the retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC and the applicability of Section 148 in cases of retrospective amendments. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions for the revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 80IA,Section 80IB,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of decision: 20.7.2011 Gupta International -----Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.174 and 175 of 2011 as both the appeals involve common questions of law.

ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No.2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 80HHC read with section 80IA(9) read with section 80IB(13) the Tribunal has erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act? b) Whether the provisions of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 by bringing third and fourth proviso to section 80HHC retrospectively are unconstitutional and against Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution and needs to be quashed?

c) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 148 the same are applicable in a case where a substantive provision has been brought in the statute retrospectively?

Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee fairly states that matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 18.4.2011 in ITA No.469 of 2010, Asin Exim International v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, Punjab wherein it was held that if deduction under Section 80IA has been taken, deduction under Section 80HHC was not admissible in view of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(9) of the Act, following earlier judgment of this Court in Friends Castings (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2011) 50 DTR Judgments 61. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 20, 2011

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’

Judge

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →