THE COMMISSIONER vs. SMT.HALEEMA ZUBAIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/750/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025511200929 July 2009Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the appellate authorities had made findings on facts, specifically that the assessee had the processing of seafoods done by engaging an agency and that these processed seafoods were exported on behalf of an export house, which provided a supporting certificate. Based on these factual findings by the lower appellate authorities, the High Court found no reason to disturb the Tribunal's decision confirming the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer. The ratio decidendi is that if factual findings by appellate authorities establish that an assessee engaged an agency for processing and the goods were exported with supporting documentation, the deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer can be allowed. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Cochin, is the appellant, and Smt. Haleema Zubair, M/s. Poseidon Food Company, is the respondent. The appeals concern assessment years not explicitly stated. The challenge is to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, which confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeal). The CIT(Appeal) had allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer for exported seafoods. The claim was initially allowed but later withdrawn under Section 147 proceedings on the grounds that the assessee was not engaged in processing or manufacturing. However, the appellate authorities found that the assessee had the processing of seafoods done by engaging an agency, and these processed seafoods were exported on behalf of an export house, which issued a certificate for the claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeal) which held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer for seafoods exported, thereby holding that the assessee engaged in processing or manufacturing. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that they engaged an agency for the processing of seafoods, and the processed seafoods were exported on behalf of an export house. The export house issued a certificate supporting the claim. The appellate authorities, based on these facts, found the assessee eligible for the deduction. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's primary contention, leading to the Section 147 proceedings, was that the assessee was not engaged in any processing or manufacturing, which is a prerequisite for claiming deduction as a supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC. The revenue argued against the assessee's eligibility.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 ITA.No. 750 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.288/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SMT.HALEEMA ZUBAIR, M/S.POSEDION FOOD COMPANY, P.T.USHA ROAD, COCHIN-682 011.

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, ALONG WITH ITA.749 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 749 and 750 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard the Standing Counsel for appellant. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeal) who held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC as a supporting manufacturer for the seafoods exported. On going through the orders we find that the claim was originally allowed and was later withdrawn under Section 147 proceedings for the reason that assessee was not engaged in any processing or manufacturing. However we find from the orders of the authorities below that assessee got the processing of seafoods done by engaging an agency and it is the processed seafood that was exported on behalf of the export house. In fact the export house has issued certificate based on which claim was made. In view of the findings on facts based on which decision is rendered by the appellate authorities, we decline to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Consequently the appeals are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →