RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the question raised was virtually identical to one considered in CIT v. Dharampal Prem Chand Limited: ITA 1441/2006, decided on 27.11.2008, in the context of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The language employed in Section 80IA and 80IB, concerning the question of duty drawback and profit on sale of REP licences, was found to be virtually identical. Following its earlier decision in Dharampal Prem Chand, the High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The impugned order of the ITAT was set aside to this extent, and the appeal was allowed to this extent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (the assessee) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolves around the denial of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on duty drawback and profit on sale of REP licences. The High Court admitted the appeal, framing a substantial question of law.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in denying deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on duty drawback and profit on sale of REP licences? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the ITAT erred in denying the deduction under Section 80IA on duty drawback and profit on sale of REP licences. The specific arguments and authorities relied upon by the assessee are not detailed in the provided text. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the ITAT's decision to deny the deduction was correct. The specific arguments and authorities relied upon by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 11.12.2008
+ ITA 571/2008
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. ... Appellant
- versus –
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI
... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Sriram Krishna For the Respondent : Ms Rashmi Chopra
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Admit. 2. The following substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court:- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in denying deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on duty drawback and profit on sale of REP licences? 2008:DHC:3300-DB
We find that this question has been recently considered in the context of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act in CIT v. Dharampal Prem Chand Limited: ITA 1441/2006 decided on 27.11.2008. We can dispose of this question straightaway. We find that the language employed in Section 80IA and 80IB, in the context of the question raised above, is virtually identical. Following the view that we have taken in Dharampal Prem Chand (supra), the question raised above, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
To that extent the impugned order is set aside. The appeal stands allowed to this extent.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 11, 2008 SR
2008:DHC:3300-DB
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026