ROLLATAINERS LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 165 / 2004HC Delhi06 July 20061 pages

For Petitioner: AJAY VOHRA, KAVITA JHA

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court framed a substantial question of law concerning the method of computing deduction under Section 88HHC. The question is whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction must be computed by apportioning the profits of the entire business in the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover of the business. The High Court admitted the appeal and listed it for hearing along with other related appeals. No specific finding or decision on the merits of the question of law has been rendered in this excerpt. The operative direction is to list the appeal for further hearing.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by Rollatainers Ltd. (the assessee) against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (the revenue). The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The core of the dispute revolves around the computation of deduction under Section 88HHC of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is challenging the Tribunal's decision on how this deduction should be calculated. The procedural history indicates a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the High Court. The appeal was admitted for hearing, and a substantial question of law was framed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that deduction under Section 88HHC had to be computed by apportioning the profits of the entire business in the ratio of export turnover to the turnover of the entire business? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee regarding this issue. However, the framing of the question of law implies the assessee is likely arguing against the method of apportionment prescribed by the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding this issue. However, the revenue would likely be supporting the Tribunal's decision on the computation of deduction under Section 88HHC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

88HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 165/2004 . . ROLLATAINERS LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Ajay Vohra with Ms.Kavita Jha . versus . . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent . . . Through Ms.P.L. Bansal with Mr.Ajay Jha . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI . O R D E R 06.07.2006 CM No.4999/2004 (Delay) Learned counsel for the Respondent does not seriously oppose the application for condonation of delay. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA No.165/2004 Admit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law arise for our consideration - . ?Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that deduction under Section 88HHC had to be computed by apportioning the profits of the entire business in the ratio of export turnover to the turnover of the entire business?? . To be listed along with ITA Nos. 85/2003, 419/2003 and 445/2003. . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . JULY 06, 2006 VIPIN SANGHI, J kapil . .

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →