CIT, LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEENA EXPORTS, UJHA ROAD, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA/674/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093633201010 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of an identical appeal, ITA No. 299 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd.), which was allowed by the same court on August 16, 2010, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal was also to be taken up before the Tribunal on December 20, 2010, along with connected matters. The Tribunal was directed to proceed in accordance with law after due notice to the assessee. The specific finding on the substantial question of law was not rendered by the High Court in this order, as it followed a previous precedent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'G'. The ITAT's order, passed in ITA No. 1659/Del/2008, pertained to the assessment year 1999-2000. The dispute involved the deductibility of Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) benefits under Section 80HHC of the Act, specifically when the assessee's turnover exceeded Rs. 10 crores. The High Court was considering the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of the second, third and fourth provisos to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC on the face value of DEPB when the turnover exceeded Rs. 10 crores. This was in light of the second, third, and fourth provisos to sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC, which were inserted retrospectively from April 1, 1998. The Revenue relied on an identical appeal decided by the High Court.

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: 10.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ....Appellant Versus M/s Sheena Exports ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G', Delhi passed in ITA No. 1659/Del/2008 dated 18.12.2009 for the assessment year 1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of second, third and fourth provisos to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998?”

-2-

2.

Learned counsel for the revenue points out that identical appeal being ITA No. 299 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd.) filed by the revenue was allowed by this Court on 16.8.2010 and the matter remanded to the Tribunal.

3.

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in same terms. The matter may be taken up before the Tribunal on December 20, 2010 along with connected matters and the Tribunal may thereafter proceed in accordance with law after due notice to the assessee. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 10, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs 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 →