COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LDH. vs. M/S NAHAR EXPORTS LTD. LDH.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law survived for determination. This was based on the concessions made by the Revenue's counsel. For the first issue, the Court noted the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd., which mandates the set-off of unabsorbed business losses (and by implication, depreciation) for Section 80HHC calculations. For the second issue, the Court referred to its own precedent in CIT vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. For the third issue, the Court acknowledged its prior ruling in Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT. Consequently, as all proposed substantial questions of law had been decided against the Revenue by higher authorities or its own precedents, the appeal was dismissed without a fresh determination on the merits of these issues.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench 'B', dated July 31, 2006. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2000-01. The dispute involved the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Revenue proposed three substantial questions of law for determination by the High Court.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years should be reduced from the profits of the business computed for deduction under Section 80HHC. 2. Whether Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax should be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. 3. Whether Service Charges of dyeing and knitting should be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. Contentions: The Revenue's counsel conceded that Question No. 1 had been decided against the Revenue by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC), which held that unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under Section 72 should be set off for determining business profits for Section 80HHC deduction. The counsel also conceded that Question No. 2 was decided against the Revenue by this Court in CIT vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 397. Furthermore, Question No. 3 was admitted to have been decided against the Revenue by this Court in ITA No. 503 of 2007 (Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. CIT) decided on February 25, 2008.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No.164 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … ITA No.164 of 2007
Date of decision: 10.3.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax -III,Ludhiana .. Appellant Versus M/s Nahar Export Ltd. .. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J 1. The Revenue has filed the present Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’ Chandigarh dated 31.7.2006 passed in ITA No.293/CHANDI/2003 for the Assessment Year 2000-01 raising the following proposed substantial question of law: - i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years is not to be reduced from the profits of the business computed for deduction u/s 80 HHC? ii)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that Sales Tax, and Central Sales Tax be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction u/s 80 HHC? Iii)Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case,
ITA No.164 of 2007 2 the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that Service Charges of dyeing and knitting be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction u/s 80 HHC? 2. At the outset, Shri Vivek Sethi, Advocate, learned counsel for the Revenue has very fairly stated that question No.1 as raised by the department has already been decided against the Revenue by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. (2007) 291 I.T.R. 380 (SC), wherein it has been held as under:- “Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifying that profits are those as determined for the purpose of the Act, will apply for determining profits from export business for the purposes of the deduction under Section 80 HHC. In determining business profits for the deduction under Section 80 HHC the unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under section 72 should be set off.” He has also conceded that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been further followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Salzer Electronics Ltd. decided on 3.7.2007. Mr.Sethi has further conceded that question No.2 has also been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of this Court cited as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 397. He has also admitted that question No.3 as raised by the Revenue also stands decided by this Court in ITA No.503 of 2007(Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 25.2.2008 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
ITA No.164 of 2007 3 In view of the above stand taken by the learned counsel for the Revenue, no substantial question of law survives for determination of this Court. Hence this appeal is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
JUDGE March 10,2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) nk JUDGE
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
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