M/S JAWAND SONS vs. C I T

PDF · subscribers
ITA/301/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01072993200717 September 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination. The Court noted that the matter was not res integra and referred to its own previous decision in ITA Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007 in the case of M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT, decided on July 31, 2007, where similar questions were raised and rejected. The High Court found that the ITAT had rightly allowed the revenue's appeal by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579, which was considered fully applicable. Therefore, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the ITAT's view. The appeal was dismissed as wholly without merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Jawand Sons, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated March 27, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Branch. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2003-04. The ITAT had passed an order in I.T.A. No. 542/Chandi/2006. The assessee is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision regarding its entitlement to a deduction under Section 80IB of the Act in respect of profits and gains arising from duty drawback.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback, which is intrinsically related to the business profits of the industrial undertaking? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the ITAT was justified in denying the claims under Section 80IB by relying upon judgments like Liberty India, which are distinguishable on facts? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the findings of the ITAT are perverse and against the evidence on record, thus unsustainable in law? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the ITAT misdirected itself by being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IB? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT was not justified in denying the deduction under Section 80IB on duty drawback profits, contending that such profits are intrinsically linked to the business. The assessee also argued that the ITAT’s reliance on judgments such as Liberty India was misplaced as those cases were factually distinguishable. Furthermore, the assessee claimed the ITAT's findings were perverse and against the evidence, and that the ITAT had been influenced by irrelevant factors. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 17.9.2007 M/s Jawand Sons …Appellant Versus C.I.T., Ludhiana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee. M.M. KUMAR, J. This is assessee’s appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), against order dated 27.3.2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch (A), Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal), in I.T.A. No. 542/Chandi/2006, in respect of assessment year 2003-04. It is claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 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 judgment of this 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 factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? After hearing learned counsel for the assessee-appellant and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise, inasmuch as, the matter is not res integra. We have already rejected appeals bearing I.T.A. Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007 in the case of M/s Arisudana Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CIT, decided on 31.7.2007, wherein similar questions of law were raised. The Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the revenue by following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579, which is fully applicable to the instant appeal. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. In view of the above, this appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) September 17, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 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 →