LINEN RUGS vs. CIT ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/356/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084455200922 July 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was covered against the assessee by its own previous judgment dated September 9, 2008, in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj Oversease Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning for this dismissal is that the present case was factually and legally similar to the precedent set in the Raj Oversease case, which had already decided the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB in relation to duty drawback profits against the assessee. The High Court did not independently analyze the specific questions of law raised by the assessee in this instance, but rather relied on the established precedent. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Linen Rugs, through its partner Shri Rajesh Kumar, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi Bench 'D', dated January 21, 2009. This order pertained to the assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was filed with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The core of the dispute revolves around the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act in relation to profits and gains arising from duty drawback.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was legally justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising from duty drawback, which is intrinsically related to the business profits of the industrial undertaking. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in denying the claims under Section 80IB by relying on judgments such as the one in the case of Liberty India, which the appellant argued were distinguishable on facts. 3. Whether the findings of the ITAT were perverse and against the evidence on record, making them unsustainable in law. 4. Whether the ITAT misdirected itself by being influenced by irrelevant facts and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB. The assessee contended that duty drawback profits were intrinsically related to business profits and that the ITAT's reliance on certain judgments was misplaced. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, other than the fact that the ITAT had ruled against the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 22.7.2009 Linen Rugs, through Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/o Banu ..........Appellant Ram, Partner, 193, Green Park, Vikas Nagar, Tehsil Town, Panipat, Haryana Versus CIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Rohtak ..........Respondent 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) The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench 'D', New Delhi dated 21.1.2009 passed in ITA No. 977/DEL/2008 for the assessment year 2004- 05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) “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 which is intrinsically related/connected to the business profits of the industrial undertaking.” (ii)“That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon the (2) judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Liberty India and other judgments which are distinguishable on facts itself.” (iii)“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.” (iv)“Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant facts and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Learned counsel for the assessee very fairly states that the matter is covered against the assessee by the judgment of this Court dated 9.9.2008 in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj Oversease Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana). In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 22, 2009

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

More judgments on Section 80IB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →