NAHAR EXPORTS LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/96/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051620200414 December 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee's first substantial question of law regarding the eligibility of Cash Compensatory Allowance for deduction under Section 80-I was the only question being pressed. The Court noted the assessee's argument that the allowance was an additional price for exports and thus derived from the industrial undertaking. However, it also acknowledged the ITAT's reasoning that there was no direct nexus between the allowance and the industrial undertaking, viewing it as a receipt under an export promotion scheme. Crucially, the Court referred to its own decision in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2007) 293 ITR 520, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2009) 317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC), regarding the disallowance of similar benefits like DEPB. Since the learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert that Cash Compensatory Allowance is similar to DEPB, and the controversy was no longer res integra, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nahar Exports Limited, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 24.9.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 1990-91 and challenged the ITAT's disallowance of Cash Compensatory Allowance claimed as a deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. The assessee contended that this allowance, received from the Central Government for exports of goods manufactured by its industrial undertaking, constituted profits and gains derived from that undertaking. The ITAT had disallowed the deduction, finding no direct nexus between the allowance and the industrial undertaking, considering it merely a receipt under an export promotion scheme.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on a correct interpretation of Section 80-I of the Act, the ITAT was legally right in holding that the cash compensatory allowance received by the appellant was not profits and gains derived from its industrial undertaking? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the ITAT misdirected itself in law and on facts by holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of the claim made? 3. Whether the findings of the ITAT disallowing deductions under Section 80-I were arbitrary and perverse? Assessee's Contention: The Cash Compensatory Allowance received from the Central Government against the export of goods manufactured by its industrial undertaking is an additional price received from the Government for exports, and therefore, constitutes profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking, eligible for deduction under Section 80-I. Revenue's Contention: The ITAT's finding that there is no direct nexus between the receipt of Cash Compensatory Allowance and the industrial undertaking, and that it is merely a receipt under an export promotion scheme, is correct. The revenue relied on the High Court's decision in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2007) 293 ITR 520, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2009) 317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC), which disallowed similar benefits like DEPB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-I,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 96 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2009 Nahar Exports Limited, Ludhiana .... APPELLANT Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present: Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shweta Malhotra, Ms. Harpreet Kaur and Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocates, for the appellant-assessee. Mr. K.K. Mehta, Advocate, for the respondent-revenue. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the order dated 24.9.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (A), Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No. 104/Chandi/1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, raising the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether on a correct and proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 80-I of the Act, the ITAT was right

ITA No. 96 of 2004 -2- in law in holding that the cash compensatory allowance received by the appellant was not profits

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 80-I

All 142 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →