COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA. vs. M/S SHEENA EXPORTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/769/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093737201017 January 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that a similar appeal, ITA No.916 of 2008, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s Sheena Industries, Panipat, concerning the same issue, had already been dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated November 23, 2009. Based on this precedent of a similar appeal being dismissed, the High Court found no reason to deviate and accordingly dismissed the present appeal. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or CIT(A) regarding the allowability of deduction under Section 80HHC for supporting manufacturers is not elaborated upon, as the High Court's decision rests on the dismissal of a prior, identical appeal. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, dated October 16, 2009. The ITAT's order upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute concerns the allowability of deduction under Section 80HHC on export incentives received by the assessee, M/s Sheena Exports, who acted as a supporting manufacturer. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to allow the deduction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80 HHC, on export incentives, received by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter? The Revenue's contention, as framed in the substantial question of law, is that the ITAT erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC on export incentives for a supporting manufacturer. The Revenue's argument is implicit in the question posed, suggesting disagreement with the ITAT's interpretation of Section 80HHC in this context. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue beyond the framing of the question. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.769 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Sheena Exports. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 16.10.2009 in I.T.A. No.295/Del/2007 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80 HHC, on export incentives, received by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter?” 2. It is not disputed on behalf of the revenue that similar appeal being ITA No.916 of 2008 CIT v. M/s Sheena Inds.,

I.T.A. No.769 of 2010 Panipat, has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2009.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 17, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →