C I T vs. M/S VOGUE HOME FURNISHING

PDF · subscribers
ITA/405/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080394200819 August 2008Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. This conclusion was reached because the issue raised by the Revenue had already been decided against the Revenue by the same High Court in a previous case, Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Sushil Kumar Guptea (ITA No. 429 of 2008 decided on 25.7.2008). The ratio decidendi of that prior ruling would govern this appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, meaning the ITAT's order allowing the deduction to the assessee stands.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, has filed an appeal against the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT's order was for assessment year 1998-99 and it upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals) to allow a deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee, M/s Vogue Home Furnishing. The assessee is described as a supporting manufacturer. The dispute centers on whether a supporting manufacturer should be treated at par with a direct exporter for the purpose of this deduction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals), directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee, who is a supporting manufacturer, in the same manner as in the case of a direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of Section 80HHC(1A) read with Section 80HHC(3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's order, which was upheld, allowed the deduction to the supporting manufacturer. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in treating a supporting manufacturer at par with a direct exporter and in ignoring the specific provisions of Section 80HHC(1A), Section 80HHC(3A), and clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80HHC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 80HHC(1A),Section 80HHC(3A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.8.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ......Appellant Versus M/s Vogue Home Furnishing .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Shri Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the appellant.

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench `E', New Delhi, in ITA No. 5183/DEL/2004, for the assessment year 1998-99, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals), directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80 HHC to the assessee, who is supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case or direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of Section 80 HHC (1A) read with Section 80 HHC (3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80 HHC of the Act.”

(2) The said question of law has been answered against the Revenue in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Sushil Kumar Guptea (ITA No. 429 of 2008 decided on 25.7.2008). In view of the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 19-08-2008 ds

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →