RAHUL MEHTA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/733/2005HC DelhiDLHC01059733200513 December 2018Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of the ITAT. The Court found that an identical substantial question of law had been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the assessee's own appeal for AY 1995-96, vide order dated 20th November 2015 in ITA 467/2003. Therefore, following its previous decision, the High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that the interpretation of 'total turnover' under Section 80HHC, as decided in the previous case, applies to the present appeals. The operative direction was to set aside the ITAT's order and allow the appeals.

What were the facts?

These appeals by the assessee, Rahul Mehta, are directed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 2nd December 2004. The ITAT's decision pertains to Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The appeals were admitted by the High Court on 5th September 2005, at which time a substantial question of law was framed. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of 'total turnover' under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history indicates that the High Court had previously considered an identical issue for an earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in Section 80HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the High Court has already decided this identical issue in its favour for a prior assessment year. The assessee relies on the High Court's order in ITA 467/2003 (Rahul Mehta v. The Commissioner of Income Tax) for AY 1995-96, which held that 'total turnover' under Section 80HHC includes all business turnover, not just export turnover. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue in these appeals. However, the Revenue was the respondent before the ITAT, and the ITAT's order was against the assessee on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~R3,4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 733/2005 RAHUL MEHTA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocates. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. AND ITA 736/2005 RAHUL MEHTA ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocates. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.12.2018 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 2nd December 2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 2240/D/2001 and 2241/D/2001 for the Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 1997-98 and 1998-99

respectively. 2. While admitting these appeals on 5th September 2005, the following substantial question of law for framed for consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in Section 80 HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee?” 3. An identical question has been answered by this Court in the Assessee’s own appeal, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by an order dated 20th November 2015 in ITA 467/2003 (Rahul Mehta v. The Commissioner of Income Tax) for AY 1995-96. 4. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the ITAT and answering the aforementioned question in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SANJEEV NARULA, J. DECEMBER 13, 2018 ss

More judgments on Section 80HHC

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →