PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10 vs. MOHINI ORIGINALS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/954/2015HC DelhiDLHC01601292201515 December 2015Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the point urged by the Revenue concerning the inclusion of duty drawback in computing the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered against the Revenue by the Court's earlier decision dated 13th November, 2014, in ITA Nos. 219 and 239 of 2014 (CIT v. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd.). The reasoning is that the present appeals raise the same issue that was decided in the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi is that duty drawback is includible for the purpose of Section 10B deduction, as per the established jurisprudence of the High Court. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 10 (the Revenue) against the respondent, Mohini Originals. The appeals challenged the assessment year(s) which are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The order or action under challenge pertains to the inclusion of duty drawback in computing the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue is appealing a decision that allowed the assessee to include duty drawback for the purpose of Section 10B deduction. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether duty drawback received by the assessee is includible in computing the deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Revenue contended that duty drawback should not be included in the computation of deduction under Section 10B. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. However, it refers to a previous decision of the Court that stands against the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21^ ITA 937/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX - 10 Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, j(inior Standing Counsel , Mr Shikhar Garg arm Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. \ versus MOHINI ORIGINALS Respondent Through AND 22. + ITA 954/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10 Appellant Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel , Mr Shikhar Garg and Mr ,Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. versus MOHINI ORIGINALS Respondent Through CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 15.12.2015 1. The point urged by the Revenue in these appeals concerning the inclusion of duty drawback received in computing the deduction under Section lOB of ITA Nos.937 & 954 of2015 Page I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified

7 f 1 \ the Income Tax Act, 1961 stands covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court dated 13^ November, 2014 in ITA Nos.219 and 239 of 2014 (C/r V. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd.). Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 15, 2015 MK ITA Nos.937 &954 of2015 page 2of2

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →