COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S SOVEREIGN EXPORTS

ITA/74/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095789201123 February 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2002-03. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the computation of profit on the transfer of Duty Exemption Passbook (DEPB) entitlements. The core of the dispute lies in whether the entire sale consideration of DEPB, including any premium, represents profit chargeable under specific sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if profit should be calculated as the difference between the sale price and the face value of the DEPB. The procedural history indicates that the High Court has previously dealt with similar matters.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by referring to its earlier orders in 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), disposed of the present appeal in the same terms. These earlier orders had noticed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Therefore, the High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits but directed the Tribunal to re-examine the issue. The specific findings of the ITAT on the above issues are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the matter was disposed of based on precedent and procedural direction. The operative direction was to remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the total sale consideration of DEPB, including its face value and any premium received, represents profit chargeable under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement includes the entire amount realized from the sale of such DEPB, including any premium. 3. Whether the word "profit" in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) means the difference between the sale price and face value of DEPB, or the entire amount received. 4. Whether deducting the face value of DEPB from the sale price for calculating profit under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) is correct, treating the face value as a cost. 5. Whether an artificial cost (face value of DEPB/DFRC) should be interpolated to determine profit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. 6. Whether the deduction under Section 80HHC was correctly computed in accordance with the amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998. The Revenue contended that the entire sale consideration of DEPB, including premium, is chargeable as profit. The Assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the ITAT's decision implies a view that profit is the difference between sale price and face value. The Revenue relied on the High Court's earlier orders in CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings and CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, which in turn noticed the Bombay High Court's judgment in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.74 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Sovereign Exports. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, 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, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.507/Chd/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03 proposing 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 DEPB? (iii) Whether on the f

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 28(iiid)

All 65 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28(iiid) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →