HARISONS OVERSEAS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which affirmed that Duty Draw Back and DEPB are incentives flowing from government schemes or Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. These incentive profits do not constitute 'profits derived from the industrial undertaking' as required for deduction under Section 80-IB. Consequently, Duty Draw Back and DEPB are not includible in the net profits of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80-IB. The appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Harisons Overseas, Panipat, engaged in manufacturing and export of handloom goods, claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on business profits that included export incentives like Duty Draw Back and Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. The Assessing Officer denied this deduction, citing decisions in CIT v. Sterling Foods and CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd., holding that these incentives were not derived from the industrial undertaking. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this, relying on this Court's decision in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) affirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee filed these appeals against the ITAT's order for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Duty Draw Back received is an amount derived and eligible for claim under Section 80-IB of the Act? The assessee contended that Duty Draw Back is derived from the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction. The revenue argued, and the lower authorities held, that it is an incentive not derived from the industrial undertaking. 2. Whether the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme received is an amount derived and eligible for claim under Section 80-IB of the Act? The assessee argued that DEPB is derived from the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction. The revenue contended, and the lower authorities found, that it is an incentive not derived from the industrial undertaking. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax affirmed the view that these incentives do not fall within the expression 'profits derived from industrial undertaking' in Section 80-IB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A.s No. 628 & 630 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 18.11.2009 Harisons Overseas, Panipat .... APPELLANT Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain and Mr. D.K. Goyal, Advocates, for the appellant-assessee.
* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Income Tax Appeals No. 628 and 630 of 2009, filed by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), directed against the order dated 14.5.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “C”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA Nos. 3429 and 3430/(Del)/2008, pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07, raising the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the Duty draw back received is an amount derived and eligible for claim u/s 80-IB of the Act? (ii) Whether the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme received is an amount derived and eligible for claim u/s 80-IB of the Act?
-2- In these cases, the assessee, who derived income from manufacturing of handloom goods and its export, claimed deduction on the business profit, which included the amount of export incentives received on account of the Duty Draw Back and the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (hereinafter referred to as `DEPB') under Section 80-IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer, vide his order dated 31.3.2008, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 and a decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. 192 CTR 81, denied the deduction of the aforesaid export incentives, on the ground that the Duty Draw Back and DEPB are not the income derived from industrial undertaking, which is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act. The order of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal, by following the aforesaid decisions as well as the decision of this Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2007) 293 ITR 520, wherein it was held that the assessee is not eligible to get deduction on export incentives i.e. Duty Draw Back and DEPB under Section 80-IB of the Act. The order of the CIT (Appeals) has further been affirmed by the ITAT vide its order dated 14.5.2009, which is under challenge in these two appeals. During the course of hearing, it revealed that the decision of this Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income- Tax, (2009) 317 Income Tax Reports 218 (SC), wherein while dismissing -3-
the appeal of the assessee, it has been concluded that Duty Draw Back and DEPB are incentives, which flow from the schemes framed by the Central Govt. or under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and these incentive profits do not fall within expression “profits derived from industrial undertaking in Section 80-IB of the Act. Therefore, Duty Draw Back and DEPB do not form part of net profits of the industrial undertaking for the purposes of Section 80-IB of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the ITAT. Thus, both the appeals stand dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 18, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE
More judgments on Section 80-IB
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15 Delhi, New DelhiITA 4383/DEL/2026[2004-05]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2004-05
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15, Delhi, New DelhiITA 4382/DEL/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, Pune vs DCIT Central Circle-15, New DelhiITA 4381/DEL/2026[2002-03]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2002-03
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle-15, New DelhiITA 4380/DEL/2026[2001-02]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2001-02
- Zf Steering Gear (India) Limited, India vs DCIT, Central Circle - 15, DelhiITA 4379/DEL/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2000-01
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026