CIT vs. INDU GUPTA

m THE HIGH COORT OF DELHJ AT ^EW DELHB Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 I Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (1) ITA 404/2010 COMBVllSSiONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX PVT. LTD. (2) ITA 708/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (3) ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS. (4) ITA 927/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PH0LCO EXPORTS (5) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (6) BTA 1886/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NITSN KUMAR SADH . . . APPELLANT , , .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT „ . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT „ .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11651-DB

/ (7) STA 1887/2010 COMMISSDONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRBES. (8) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FUL KANT JHA (9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES flO) ITA 1957/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (11) ITA 1958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELINI LEATHER WEAR (12) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RiCHA APPARELS (13) 1960/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT, . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT ... APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT 2011:DHC:11651-DB

f (14) ITA 1980/2010 COMIVSISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX VERSUS AHUJA RADIOS (15) ITA 2074/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS (16) ITA 14/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA jAIN (17) ITA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH (18) ITA 67/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11651-DB

} (20) ITA 178/2011 COIVirvslSSBONER OF ENCOME TAX , ) VERSUS [NDU GUPTA (21) ITA 181/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN (22) ITA 182/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (23) ITA 184/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) ITA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VIICAS KALRA (25) ITA 187/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS ANOJ GOEL . . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT- . . APPELLANT , . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (26) ITA 723/2009 2011:DHC:11651-DB

•VERSUS PRSYANKA OVERSEAS'P. LTD„ . . .KESPOMDENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shul<la, Mr. Pral<ash Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit Dayal, Mr. Panl<aj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.gC. SBKRI. L 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. l.iC.SSECRI) JUDGE JUDGE- FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb rW.L.MEHTA) ^ 2011:DHC:11651-DB

THE HiGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ()> Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (1) ITA 12/2011 COMMiSSilOW.ER OF 0NCOME TAX VERSUS PAF^ASVSOONT IMPEX P¥T. LTD.. (2) ITA 404/2010 COMMiSSIOMER OF BBSSCOME TAX VERSUS ARJA5SS IMPEX P¥T. LTD. (3) 708/2010 COMMlSSiOfSIER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPEMTEX ISMDOSTRDES LTD. (4) ETA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF 0MCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS., (5) ETA 927/2010 COMMISSIOWER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS (@) ITA 1080/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS I SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (7) ITA 1886/2010 ' COMMISSIONER OF'.BNCOME TAX . . RESPONDENT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT , . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT. . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11651-DB

VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH ..RESPONDENT . • C8) ITA 1887/2010 ' CONMISSiON'E'R OF INCOME TAX ..APPELLANT VERSUS KAIPOOR SIMDySTRBES. . . .RESPONDESVIT (9) ITA 1896/2010 • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS FULICANTJHA • . . .RESPONDENT (101 BTA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...APPELLANT' VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES . .RESPONDENT (11) ITA 1957/2010 A COMlvSiSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ' ' . . APPELLANT VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. . .RESPONDENT • (.12) ITA 1958/2010 ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... APPELLANT . VERSUS 1 1 1 ZENELINI LEATHER WEAR 1 • . .RESPONDENT• ' 1 (13) ITA 1959/2010 1 , 1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 . . . APPELLANT VERSUS RiCHA APPARELS . .respondent' (14) 1960/2010. 2011:DHC:11651-DB

COMMiSSlOMER OF iiSICOME TAX VERSUS ECAPOOR iiSSDUSTRIES (15) iTA 1980/2010 COMMlSSflbiSSER OF BNCOME TAX VERSUS RADiOS (16) BTA 2074/2010 • COMMiSSDONER OF ISMCOME TAX VERSUS •SHOREWALA OVERSEAS BTA 14/2011 CDMMISSiOWER OF INCOME TAX SAiSSGEETA (18)JTA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH (19) BTA 67/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PUROLATOR BNDBA LTD. (201JTA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX BALDEV RAJ JAGGI (21) BTA 178/2011 VERSUS VERSUS . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT , APPELLANT .RESPONDENT APPELLANT .RESPONDENT „ APPELLANT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11651-DB

COMMasSlOMER OF IMCOME TAX VERSUS Si^DU GUPTA ITA 181/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS, SANGEETA (23) ITA 182/2011 , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) ITA 184/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION [251 ITA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VliCAS ICALRA (26) ITA 187/2'011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANOJ.GOEL . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . „ APPELLANT . , , .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT , „ .RESPONDENT . , APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decisipn Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (271 ITA 723/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2011:DHC:11651-DB

VERSUS PRIYAESJKA OVERSEAS P. LTO. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Ss Ms. Suruchi Standing Cc Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Voh Mr. Somnath Mr. Manish Dayal, Mr. Pa Nair and Mr Gupta, Advoi Poonam Ahuj CORAM HOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE A„iC„ SiKR HON'BLE. MR. JUSTICE MEH 1. Wlnether Reporters of Local new to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter o 3. Whether the Judgment should b v.K. SIKRI. • .. . .RESPOMDEiSST whney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, ^ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. unsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, ra, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha, Shukia, Mr. Prakash Kumar and Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit nkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Gpyal, Mr. Vijay Manish Chaudhary, Dr.. Rakesh ;ate .with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. a, Advocates. TA spapers may be allowed r not? B reported in the Digest? 1. All these appeals involved comnnon .of convenience, we can reproduce the qi these appeals:- question of law. For the sake estions of law framed in one of "(a) Whether on a correc relevant statutory provisions, law in directing the. Asse deduction under section 80H of "profit" on sale of DEPB? interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n ssing Officer to allow HC of the Act in respect (b)Whether on the facts of th was justified in Jaw in impi assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Sectio respect of DEPB Credit utilize e present case. Tribunal iedly holding that the :o deduction as per the n 3 of Section SOHHC in d by the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the Tribuni^l in all these cases are brief because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the ITAT case of Topmam Expoirt \/s. ITO [ITA N dated August, 2009.]. By that Judgrji has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the D. 5769/|Vium./2006 decided on ent, the Special Bench of the 2011:DHC:11651-DB

Tribunal has held that the face value of DE PB is chargeable to tax u/s 2 at is, when the application for rity pursuant to exports and cess of sale proceeds of DEPB u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, th DEPB is filed with the competent autho profit in sale of DEPB representing the ex over its face value is liable to be considered sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal i Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Court has reversed th^ the judgment of the Bombay High Court of Sncome Tax Vs. KaSpataru Colours a 5. These appeals stand disposed of on FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb the High Court Adjudicate at the Special Bench of the ITAT. ? decision of the Tribunal and is reported as CommBsssomier ChemlcaK 328 ITR 451. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply follo\}ved Special Bench decision in I Topmain Exports (supra) which stands over ruled, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in all these cases and remit the cases back to the Tribunal to decide these appeal^ on merits after taking into account factual position in all these cases. above terms. .L.MEIHTA) JUDGE 2011:DHC:11651-DB