C I T vs. SUSHIL GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/404/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080393200819 August 2008Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law proposed by the Revenue had already been answered against the Revenue in a previous decision by the same Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Sushil Kumar Guptea (ITA No. 429 of 2008 decided on 25.7.2008). In light of this prior ruling, the Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning of the prior judgment regarding the interpretation of Section 80HHC for supporting manufacturers is not detailed in this judgment, but it formed the basis for dismissing the current appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal, has appealed against an order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2002-03 and upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to allow a deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee, who is 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 learned 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 the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in allowing the deduction to a supporting manufacturer by treating them at par with a direct exporter, thereby 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 Sh. Sushil Gupta .....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 27.7.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench `F', New Delhi, in ITA No. 1044/DEL/2006, for the assessment year 2002-03, 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 →