M/S SARAF EXPORT vs. THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering that the issue was concluded against the assessee by its own division bench judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports, dismissed the appeals. The court noted that the assessee had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, and the dismissal was made subject to the final outcome of that SLP. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial discipline and adherence to pronouncements of higher courts within its jurisdiction. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals, with the caveat regarding the pending SLP.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Saraf Export, engaged in manufacturing wooden handicraft items, claimed deductions under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in addition to normal business profits. This claim was based on income shown from export sales and deductions for DEPB and Drawback duty. The Assessing Officer, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT, disallowed these amounts, considering them incentives. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) however, found the Liberty India judgment to be per incuriam and followed earlier Rajasthan High Court judgments and a Tribunal order, allowing the assessee's appeal. The Revenue appealed to the High Court.
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, in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT had correctly distinguished the Liberty India judgment and followed other High Court and Tribunal precedents, implying these incentives should not be disallowed. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the matter was squarely covered by a previous division bench judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III vs. M/s. Saraf Exports, which allowed the appeal of the revenue.
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 →- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026