M/S BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD vs. COMMI. OF IT, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/401/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095744201128 March 2012Bench: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present appeals are squarely covered by its prior judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, which was decided on March 20, 2012. This prior judgment had allowed the appeals in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. Consequently, the High Court allowed the present appeals. The impugned orders passed by the Amritsar Bench and Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT were set aside. The matters were remanded back to the concerned Assessing Officers with a direction to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in accordance with law and in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Topman Exports. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns a batch of appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by various assessees, including M/s Broadway Overseas Ltd., against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar and Chandigarh Benches. The appeals involve common questions of law and fact. The High Court noted that these appeals were squarely covered by its previous judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, decided on March 20, 2012. This prior judgment, in turn, relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The specific assessment years and ITAT appeal numbers are detailed in the annexure to the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's previous judgment in M/s Turbo Impex v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, applies to the present appeals? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem (in agreement) that the present appeals are squarely covered by the High Court's judgment in M/s Turbo Impex. They rely on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Topman Exports. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in this judgment. The judgment states that the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) and connected appeals Date of Decision: March 28, 2012 M/s Broadway Overseas Ltd. …Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR CE M.M. KUMAR CE M.M. KUMAR CE M.M. KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH Present:

For the Appellant(s): Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest

M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1.

This order shall dispose of a bunch of appeals* filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the order(s)** ** ** ** passed by the Amritsar and Chandigarh Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal because common question of law and facts are involved. 2.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present appeals are squarely covered by our judgment in a similar bunch of appeals, rendered in the case of M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex M/s Turbo Impex v. v. v. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana II, Ludhiana (ITA No. 361 of 2011, (ITA No. 361 of 2011, (ITA No. 361 of 2011, (ITA No. 361 of 2011,

ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals 2 decided on 20.3.2012) decided on 20.3.2012) decided on 20.3.2012) decided on 20.3.2012) wherein we have allowed the appeals in the light of the principles enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Topman Exports Topman Exports Topman Exports v. v. v. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai Mumbai, (2012) 3 SCC 593 , (2012) 3 SCC 593 , (2012) 3 SCC 593 , (2012) 3 SCC 593. 3.

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Topman Expo Topman Expo Topman Expo Topman Exports (supra) rts (supra) rts (supra) rts (supra). The impugned order(s)** passed by the Amritsar Bench and Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded back to the concerned Assessing Officer(s) with a direction to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra) Topman Exports (supra). 4.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all the connected appeals.

(M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

(ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH) March arch arch arch 28, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2012

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor * Arising out of Sr. No. ITA No. Title Date of the impugned order** ** ** ** Name of the Bench of the ITAT which has passed the impugned order ITA No. before the Tribunal Assessment Year 1 301 of 2011 M/s Ambika Overseas v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 119(ASR)2009 2003-04 2 256 of 2011 M/s Broadway Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 429(ASR)2009 2003-04

ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals ITA No. 401 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals 3 3 401 of 2011 M/s Broadway Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jalandhar 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 430(ASR)2009 2004-05 4 302 of 2011 M/s Eastman International v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 487/CHD/2009 2001-02 5 262 of 2011 M/s Gee Kay International v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 31(ASR)2009 2003-04 6 267 of 2011 M/s Gee Kay International v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 32(ASR)2009 2004-05 7 266 of 2011 M/s Hansa Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 179(ASR)2009 2004-05 8 265 of 2011 M/s Hansa Exports Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 47(ASR)2009 2003-04 9 263 of 2011 M/s Hansa Exports Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 228(ASR)2009 2004-05 10 304 of 2011 M/s Jindal Fine Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 10/CHANDI/2007 2003-04 11 226 of 2011 M/s Ramco International v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 613(ASR)2008 2004-05 12 403 of 2011 M/s Sovereign Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 192/CHD/2009 2001-02 13 404 of 2011 M/s Sovereign Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 741/CHD/2006 2003-04 14 402 of 2011 M/s Sovereign Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 347/CHD/2008 2004-05 15 264 of 2011 M/s Suri Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another 24.12.2010 Amritsar Bench 50(ASR)2009 2004-05 16 305 of 2011 M/s TRB Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 749/CHANDI/2006 2003-04 17 303 of 2011 M/s TRB Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana 30.6.2011 Chandigarh Bench 402/CHANDI/2008 2004-05

(M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE

(ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH) March arch arch arch 2 2 2 28, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2012

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →