CIT vs. BALDEV RAJ JAGGI

. 6 THE HIGH COURT OF DELH! AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (1) ITA 404/2010 COMMISSBONER 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 PHILCO EXPORTS (5) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (6) ITA 1886/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT , . . APPELLANT . . .'RESPOSSSDENT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT. . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

(7) ITA 1887/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (8) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FUL KANT JHA (9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (10) BTA 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 (9 .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT ^RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

(14) ITA 1980/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 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 PyROLATOR INDIA LTD. (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI n. . . APPELLANT . .RESPOMDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT , . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

(20) ITA 178/2011 / COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . VERSUS INDU GUPTA (21) ITA 181/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN (22) ITA 182/2011 COMMISSBONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (23) ITA 184/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) 6TA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VIKAS KALRA (25) ITA 187/2011 COMMISSBONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANOJ GOEL 0 „ . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT' . . .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:11664-DB

m[y •VERSUS PR0YANKA OVERSEAS P. LTD„ . . .IRESPOMDESSIT 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 Shukia, Mr. Prakash Kunnar and , Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit Dayal, Mr. Pankaj 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. JUSTBCE A.K. SlKm HOW'BLE MR. JUSTBCE 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.EC. SlKRl. i. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. (A.K.SBiCRB) JUDGE • • JUDGE- FEBRUARY 18/2011, skb n^l.L.MEHTA) ^^ 2011:DHC:11664-DB

m THE HIGH COORT OF DELHfl AT NEW DELHI Judgm Decisio (1) ITA 12/2011 commissioner of i^scome tax VERSUS PARANOONT IMPEX P¥T. (2) ITA 404/2010 COMMISSiOMER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ARJAiSfl BMPEX P¥T. LTD. (3) ITA 708/2010 COMMISSiOMER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDOSTRSES LTD. (4)' ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS. (5) BTA 927/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS (6) BTA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (7) BTA 1886/2010 COMMiSSBONER OF INCOME TAX Bnt Reserved on: 10.02.2011 n Delivered On: 18.02.2011 . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT ... APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

VERSUS NiTiN KUMAR SADH (8) iTA liB87/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (9) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS •FULKANTJHA (10) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (.11) BTA 1957/2010 COMMSSSIONER'oF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN IND.USTRiES PVT. LTD. (12) ITA 1958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX • VERSUS ZENELINI LEATHER/WEAR (13) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICHA APPARELS (14) 1960/2010 .RESPONDEMT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT JT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

COMMlSSiOIMER OF BiMCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR iMOOSTRIES (15) ITA 1980/2010 COMMSSSiOMER OF EWCOME TAX VERSUS jRADiOS (16) BTA 2074/2010 COMIVBasSiOSSiER OF INCOME VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS (17) PTA 14/2011 COMMISSIONER OF BMCO'ME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIM (18) PTA 15/2011 COMMiSSiOSSIER OF DNCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH j (19) ITA 67/2011 COMNISSPOSSBER OF DJMCOME TAX VERSUS PUROLATOR LTD„ (20) BTA 177/2011 COMMiSSiOffsPER OF DNCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGG'I (21) PTA 178/2011 . . „RESPONDEWiT „ „ APPELLAMT „ .RESPOWDEMT „ = APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT = APPELLAi^T .RESPONDENT . . .RESPONDENT „ , .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT „ = .RESPONDENT 2011:DHC:11664-DB

COMMBSSiOSMER'OF INCOME VERSUS GOPTA (22) BTA 181/2011 COiNMiSSflONER OF ENCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN (23) STA 182/2011 COMMISSDOMER OF IMCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATBON. (24) BTA 184/2011 COMMOSSIOMER OF IMCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATBOM (25) BTA 185/2011 COMMBSSIOMER OF BBMCOME TAX VERSUS VBKAS ICALRA •(26) BTA 187/2011 COMMISSDOWER OF BNCOMETAX VERSUS ASSiOJ GOEL „ . APPELLANT . „RESPOi\IDES\IT . . APPELLANT . „ .RESPONDENT . . -APPELLANT = . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT , . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 DecisiQn Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (27) BTA 723/2009 COMMBSSIONER OF BNCOME TAX 2011:DHC:11664-DB

VERSUS •PRIYANKA OVERSEAS P. LTD„ COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal S5 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 Aliuj CO RAM HOISS'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SlKff^i HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE MX. MEH 1. Whether Reporters of Local new to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter o 3. Whether the Judgment should b A.K. SP8CRL i. 1. All these appeals involved common of convenience, we can reproduce the qi these appeals:- "(a) Whether on a correc relevant statutory provisions law in directing the Asse deduction under section 80H of "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of th was justified in law in imp assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Sectio respect of DEPB Credit utilized „ „ .RESPOWDEMT whney, Mr. Abhishe[< Maratha, ^ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. unsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, ra, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha, Shul<la, Mr. Prakash Kumar and Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit nkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Raicesh :ate- with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. a. Advocates. spapers may be allowed r n,bt? B reported in the Digest? question of law. For the sake estions of law framed in one of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n bSing Officer to allow HC of the Act in respect e present case. Tribunal liedly holding that the 0 deduction as per the n 3 of Section 80HHC in by the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the Tribuna because of the reason that the Tribuna in all these cases are brief was supposed to) the decision of the case of Topman Export Us. STO [ITA N dated August, 2009.]. By that j ITAT has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the D. 5769/iV|um./2006 decided on judgment, the Special Bench of the 2011:DHC:11664-DB

(f^ Tribunal has held that the face value of Df (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 consider^ sale. PB is chargeable to tax u/s 28 at is, when the application for rity pursuant to exports and r cess of sale proceeds of DEPB d u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its 3. the Revenue had filed the appeal ir Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Court has reversed th^ the judgment of^the Bombay High Court of Mcome Tax Vs. KaSpataru Colours a 5. These appeals stand disposed of on FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb • 1 the High Court Adjudicate at the Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and is reported as CommBsssoner ChemScaBs, 328 ITR 451. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply follo\|ved Special Bench decision 'in Topmami Exports (supra) which stands over ruled, w.e 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. ,.K.SIiCR0) (DVi.L.MEHm) 2011:DHC:11664-DB