M/S DUGGAL EXPORTS vs. CIT LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/321/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084417200920 August 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee did not dispute that the matter was covered against the assessee by this Court's order dated September 9, 2008, in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj Oversease Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana). This implies that the High Court found the present case to be on similar facts and legal grounds as the cited precedent, which had been decided against the assessee. Therefore, the High Court did not independently analyze the merits of the questions of law raised by the assessee but relied on the binding precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Duggal Exports, through its partner Mr. Subhash Duggal, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated November 26, 2008. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-04. The ITAT's order was challenged for its decision regarding the eligibility of deductions under Section 80IB and Section 80HHC of the Act. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal to the High Court after the ITAT's adverse order.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several substantial questions of law. The primary issues were: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising from duty drawback and premium on DEPB, which are intrinsically related to the business profits of the industrial undertaking. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in denying claims under Section 80IB by relying on judgments like Liberty India, which the assessee argued were distinguishable on facts. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in reversing the CIT(A)'s orders by holding that deduction under Section 80HHC is not available on duty drawback and sale of replenishment licenses, contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in B. Des Raj Vs. CIT. 4. Whether the ITAT's findings were perverse and against the evidence, making them unsustainable in law. 5. Whether the ITAT misdirected itself by being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB. The assessee contended that duty drawback and DEPB premium are intrinsically related to business profits and that the ITAT's reliance on certain judgments was misplaced. The assessee also argued that the denial of deduction under Section 80HHC was against Apex Court rulings. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the ITAT's order, which is under challenge, likely supported the revenue's position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IB,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 20.8.2009 M/s Duggal Exports, through partner Mr. Subhash ..........Appellant Duggal, S/o Khushi Ram Versus CIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, ..........Respondent Punjab CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh “SMD” Bench dated 26.11.2008 passed in ITA No. 467/Chandi/2008 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- 1. “That the ITAT was justified in law in holding that appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback and premium on DEPB which is intrinsically related/connected to the business profits of the industrial undertaking?

2.

That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB of the (2) Income Tax Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Liberty India and other judgments which are distinguishable on facts itself.

3.

That the ITAT is not justified in reversing the orders of CIT(A) by holding that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not available on duty drawback and sale of replenishment licenses to the appellant which is against the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. Des Raj Vs. CIT (SC).”

4.

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of ITAT are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law.”

5.

Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2.

Learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj Oversease Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana).

3.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 20, 2009

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No (3)

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →