COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHEENA EXPORTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/88/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095803201126 April 2011Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a concession made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel fairly stated that the issue raised in the present appeal was already covered against the Revenue by a prior judgment of the same High Court. This prior judgment, dated January 17, 2011, in I.T.A. No.769 of 2010, in the case of CIT v. M/s Sheena Exports, dealt with the same substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was left undecided; the appeal was decided on the basis of the concession.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, 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 appeal pertained to the assessment year 2003-04 and challenged the ITAT's decision to uphold the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC on export incentives received by the assessee, M/s Sheena Exports, as a supporting manufacturer, in the same manner as for a direct exporter. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

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? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was decided based on a concession by the Revenue. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, conceded that the matter was covered against it by a previous order of the High Court dated January 17, 2011, in CIT v. M/s Sheena Exports (I.T.A. No.769 of 2010).

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.88 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011 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 appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

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 ITA No.296/Del/2009for the assessment year 2003-04 claiming 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?”

I.T.A. No.88 of 2011 Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 17.1.2011 in I.T.A. No.769 of 2010 in CIT v. M/s Sheena Exports. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 26, 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 →