PRAFFUL EXPORTS

t. $-12 to 15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 191/20r2.rTA 19212012.19312012 & 19412012 PRAFFUL EXPORTS ..... APPellant Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta and Ms.Rani Kiyala, Advocates CIT ....' ResPondent Through: Mr.SanjeevRajpal, Advocate l CORAM: |' HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KIIANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER oh 17.05.2012 By an order dated 23.3.2012, the following question was framed: ' "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that export incentive in form of DEPB receipt not to be taken into under Explanation baa to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. 196I?" We have examined the order dated 23.3.2012 and it is seen that there are clerical errors in the question framed on 23.3.2012. The same is , reframed and should read as under:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that export incentive in form of DEPB credit is not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Explanation (baa) and Sub- 2012:DHC:9844-DB

t: I section 3 to Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act,196l? Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we hold that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Mumbai); (20I\ 2a7 CTR (SC) 353. In the said decision, it has been held that DEPB credit is covered by Section 28 (iiib) of the Income Tax Act and, accordingly, deduction has to be computed while considering Explanation (baa) and Sub- section 3 to Section 80HHC. The question of law mentioned above is, accordingly answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent- revenue. The assessing officer will re-compute the deduction under Section SQHHC in terms of the ratio and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (Supra). The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. SANJIV KITANNA, J rlI\ I N\\"-1"-{ ' R.V.EASWAR, J MAY 17,2012 SV 2012:DHC:9844-DB