M/S THOMSON PRESS INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 986 / 2006HC Delhi21 July 20061 pages
For Petitioner: MR.PRAKASH KUMAR
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed two substantial questions of law. The first question concerns whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's income was under-assessed due to interest debited amounting to Rs.79,46,318/- for assessment year 1993-94. The second question relates to whether the Tribunal erred in not considering the assessee's alternative submissions for deductions under Section 80HHC and Section 10A concerning its Faridabad and NEPZ, Noida units. The court directed that paper books be filed in accordance with the High Court Rules. No findings or decisions on the merits of these questions were made in this order; it merely admitted the appeal and framed the issues for determination. The operative directions were to admit the appeal and list it for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the judgment is preliminary.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns an appeal filed by M/s Thomson Press India Ltd. (the assessee) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appeal is admitted by the High Court of Delhi and is to be heard along with another appeal, ITA No.83/2003. The specific assessment year under consideration for the first question of law is 1993-94. The material facts leading to the dispute involve an amount of interest debited by the assessee, aggregating to Rs.79,46,318/-, which the revenue contends resulted in under-assessment of income. The second question of law pertains to the Tribunal's alleged failure to consider alternative submissions by the assessee regarding deductions under Section 80HHC and Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to its units at Faridabad and NEPZ, Noida, respectively.

What were the issues?

The High Court framed two substantial questions of law for determination: 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income of the assessee company had been under-assessed concerning the amount of interest debited, aggregating to Rs.79,46,318/-, for the assessment year 1993-94? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not considering the alternative submission pertaining to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act as also Section 10A of the Act pertaining to the unit at Faridabad and NEPZ, Noida respectively? Arguments for the Assessee: The assessee's contentions are not explicitly detailed in this order, beyond the fact that they are challenging the Tribunal's findings on the under-assessment of income related to interest and the non-consideration of their alternative submissions for deductions under Sections 80HHC and 10A. Arguments for the Revenue: The revenue's arguments are also not explicitly detailed, but their position is implied by the first question of law, which suggests they argued for under-assessment of income due to the interest debited by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . ITA 986/2006 . . M/S THOMSON PRESS INDIA LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr.Prakash Kumar . versus . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through Mr. R.D. Jolly . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI . O R D E R 21.07.2006 CM No.8465/2006 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. ITA No.986/2006 Admit. To be heard along with ITA No.83/2003. The following substantial questions of law arise for our determination - (1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the income of the assessee company had been under-assessed in so far as it related to the amount of interest debited, aggregating to Rs.79,46,318/- for the assessment year 1993-94? . (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not considering the alternative submission pertaining to deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act as also 10A of the Act pertaining to the unit at Faridabad and NEPZ, Noida respectively? . . . . Paper books be filed in accordance with the High Court Rules. . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . . JULY 21, 2006 VIPIN SANGHI, J kapil

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →