COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JALANDHAR vs. M/S INDIAN AUTO INDUSTRIES, ETC, PHAGWARA

ITA/861/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093839201016 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar, dated July 6, 2010. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2001-02 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the computation of profit on the transfer of Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) entitlements. The specific amount in dispute is not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the Revenue's appeal to the High Court after the ITAT's order.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal by following its earlier orders dated August 16, 2010, in similar cases (I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings and I.T.A. No.299 of 2010 CIT v. F.C. Sondhi). In those earlier orders, the Court had noted a judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (2010 (42) DTR 193) and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits in the present appeal. The operative direction was to remand the case to the Tribunal. The Court did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent but granted liberty to the respondent to move the Court if they had any grievance. No issue was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as the decision was based on precedent and procedural remand.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide six substantial questions of law. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of 'profit' under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning DEPB entitlements. 1. Whether the total sale consideration of DEPB, including premium, represents profit chargeable under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie)? 2. Whether profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement includes the entire amount received, including premium? 3. Whether 'profit' under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) means the difference between sale price and face value, ignoring the entire amount as profit? 4. Whether deducting the face value of DEPB from the sale price for profit calculation is correct, treating face value as cost? 5. Whether 'profit' under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) requires interpolation of artificial cost by deducting face value from sale proceeds for Section 80HHC deduction? 6. Whether the deduction under Section 80HHC was computed correctly according to the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1998? The Revenue contended that the entire sale consideration, including premium, should be treated as profit. The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the assessee, M/s Indian Auto Industries, nor does it name any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either party in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 28(iiid),Section 28(iiie),Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.861 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Indian Auto Industries. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar dated 6.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.152(Asr)/2010 for the assessment year 2001-02 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not holding that total sale consideration inclusive of face value of DEPB and premium amount received thereof represents profit chargeable under sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement represents the entire amount inclusive of premium of sale of such DE

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 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →