RAM KISHAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 192 / 2006HC Delhi26 February 20071 pages
For Petitioner: RAKESH GUPTA, JITENDER S
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law concerning the ITAT's interpretation of Section 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The specific issue is whether depreciation on an imported car, disallowed under Section 32 of the Act, should be included as an indirect cost for the purpose of calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC(3)(b). The judgment does not record the ITAT's finding or the reasoning behind it, nor does it contain the High Court's decision on the framed question of law. The High Court directed that paper books be filed in accordance with the rules. No specific relief was granted at this stage, and the matter is to proceed further.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the assessee, Ram Kishan, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT's decision on this interpretation is under challenge. The procedural history indicates that the High Court has admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law for consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in interpreting Section 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and including depreciation claimed by the Assessee on an imported car as a part of indirect cost incurred by the Assessee, even though that depreciation was disallowed under Section 32 of the Act? Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that the ITAT erred in its interpretation of Section 80HHC(3)(b) by including disallowed depreciation as part of indirect costs. The specific arguments made by the assessee are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the framing of the question of law. Revenue's contention: The revenue's arguments are not recorded in the provided text. The judgment only states that the appeal was admitted after hearing learned counsel for both parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 192/2006 . RAM KISHAN ..... Appellant Through Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocates. versus . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA . O R D E R 26.02.2007 . Admit. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the following substantial question of law arises for our consideration:- ? Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in interpreting Section 80HHC (3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and including depreciation claimed by the Assessee on an imported car as a part of indirect cost incurred by the Assessee even though that depreciation was disallowed under . ITA 192/2006 Page 1 of 2 Section 32 of the Act.? Paper books be filed in accordance with the High Court rules. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . . V. B. GUPTA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2007 . . rs . . . . . . . . . ITA 192/2006 Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →