COMM. OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HANDFAB INDIA, PANIPAT

ITA/712/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093676201023 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The appeals, ITA Nos. 712 to 714 of 2010, pertain to assessment year 1999-2000 and involve common questions of law concerning the assessee, M/s Handfab India. The core dispute revolves around the allowability of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, specifically in relation to the face value of DEPB (Duty Exemption Pass Book) and its inclusion in business profits. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's decision was not justified in light of certain amendments to Section 80HHC.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the submission by the Revenue that the matter is covered by its earlier order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd., disposed of the appeals in the same terms. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly. The Court remanded the matter to the ITAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The principle established is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, the appeals should be decided in line with that precedent, and if necessary, the case can be remanded for fresh adjudication by the lower appellate authority. The operative direction was to remand the case to the ITAT. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the High Court's decision was based on a precedent.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC on the face value of DEPB when the turnover exceeded Rs. 10 crores, considering the proviso (ii), (iii), and (iv) inserted by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the entire DEPB amount by incorporating it in the computation of business profit under Section 28(iiib). Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the matter is covered in its favour by the High Court's order dated 16.08.2010 in ITA No. 299 of 2010, Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC,Section 28(iiib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.712 of 2010 & other connected cases being ITA Nos.713 and 714 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.12.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Handfab India. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counsel for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

This order will dispose of ITA Nos.712 to 714 of 2010 as all the appeals involve common questions of law. I.T.A. No.712 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 29.9.2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.1987/Del/ 2008 for the assessment year 1999-2000 claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80 HHC on the face

I.T.A. No.712 of 2010 value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective ef

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 →