M/S SARAF EXPORT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue was concluded against the assessee as far as the High Court was concerned, citing its own earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports. The Tribunal's decision to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT as 'per incuriam' was implicitly set aside by the High Court's reliance on its own precedent. The High Court reasoned that its prior judgment directly addressed the disallowance of DEPB and Drawback duty as incentives, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance in Liberty India. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, restoring the Assessing Officer's order. However, the dismissal was made subject to the final outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court.
What were the facts?
These appeals by M/s Saraf Export (the assessee) are against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee, engaged in manufacturing wooden handicraft items, claimed deductions under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in addition to income from export sales, DEPB, and Drawback duty for assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer disallowed the DEPB and Drawback duty, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT, however, allowed the assessee's appeal, deeming the Supreme Court's Liberty India judgment 'per incuriam' and following other High Court and Tribunal rulings. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was allowed, restoring the Assessing Officer's order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether DEPB and Drawback duty amounts are to be treated as incentives and disallowed as income for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT had correctly followed judgments from the Rajasthan High Court in Chokshi Contracts (P) Ltd. and Saraf Seasoning Udyog, and an order from the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Bothra International, which were favorable to the assessee. The assessee also highlighted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed before the Supreme Court against a prior High Court judgment in a similar matter (Saraf Exports), and notice had been issued. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the matters were squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports (2016 (3) WLC 660), which had allowed the Revenue's appeal. This judgment had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India vs. CIT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 180/2018 M/s Saraf Export, RIICO Industrial Area, Sardarshar, Churu, Through Its Partner Brij Mohan Saraf ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, N.C.R.B. Building Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 211/2018 M/s Saraf Export, Riico Industrial Area, Sardarshar, Churu, Through Its Partner Arisudan Saraf ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, N.C.R.B. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 219/2018 M/s Saraf Export, Riico Industrial Area, Sardarshar, Churu, Through Its Partner Arisudan Saraf ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, N.C.R.B. Building Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 40/2019 M/s Saraf Export, Riico Industrial Area, Sardarshahar, Churu. Through Its Partner Arisudan Saraf. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Commisioner Of Income Tax, N.C.R.B. Building Statue
(2 of 3) [ITA-180/2018] Circle, Jaipur. 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Shri P.K. Kasliwal with Shri C.M. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Shri Sameer Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 09/08/2019 These appeals are directed against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which has while relying on the division bench judgement of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports-2016 (3) WLC 660 has allowed the appeal of the revenue. The assessee in the aforesaid case was engaged in the business of manufacturing of wooden handicraft items. He has shown income by way of export sales and claimed deduction under DEPB and Drawback duty for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee in addition to normal profits of the business also claimed deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the Assessing officer was not satisfied and held that these were merely incentives to the assessee and served a show cause notice on him in the light of judgement of the Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. CIT-2009 (317) ITR 218 (SC) as to why the amount of DEPB and Drawback duty be not disallowed. The Assessing Officer eventually decided the matter against the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee, however, preferred
(3 of 3) [ITA-180/2018] the appeal before the ITAT, who although referred the judgement of the Supreme Court in Liberty India, supra, but held the aforesaid judgement to be “per incuriam” and chose to follow the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Chokshi Contracts (P) Ltd.-251 ITR 587 (Raj.), Saraf Seasoning Udyog-2009 (317) ITR 202 (Raj.) and the order of Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bothra International, Jodhpur in ITA No.37/JU/2011 dated 21.9.2012. The division bench thus reversed the judgement of the ITAT and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. Learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the matters are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement of this court in Saraf Exports, supra. Learned counsel for the assessee however submits that the appellant has filed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.12142/2016, in which delay has been condoned and notice has been issued by the Supreme Court on 11.7.2016. Considering that as far as this Court is concerned, the issue has been finally concluded against the asseee, the appeals are dismissed, making them subject to final outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court on the question involved in the matters. Office to place a copy of this order in each connected matter. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J RAVI SHARMA /54-57
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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026