CIT vs Sangeeta Jain | Delhi High Court 2011

>-\\ *INTHEH|GHcoURToFDEI.H|ATIUEWDE[-I-!| + Judgment Reserved on: 10'02 '20L1 DeCision Delivered On: 18'02 '2OlL (1) tTA.4A4|2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS ARJAN|MPEXPVT.I.TD....RESPoNDENT (2) lrA 7o8l2O1O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPEI.LAT{T . VERSUS . SPENTEX IIIDUSTRIES LTD. . . .RESPOIVDEnilT - (3 ) tTA 7g3l2OLO ' coMMlssloNER oF lNcoME TAX ' ' ' APPELLANT VERSUS PHII.CO EXPOR,TS. . ' .RESPONDENT (4) ITA^ 927I2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPEI.LANT VERSUS ) P!-ltLco EXPORTS . .RESPONDENT (5) lrA 1o8o/2or.o COMMISSTONER OF IIVCOME TAX . APPELLANT VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES I.TD. . .RESPONDEI\IT (6) rTA L886/2010 COMM]SSIONER. OF INCOME TAX . APPELI.ANT VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH . .R'ESPOTVDENT 2011:DHC:11683-DB

/ .la . (7) lrA L887I2OLO COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . . APPELI-AI{T VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. .R'ESPONIDENT (8) lrA L896/20L0 COMMISSIONER OF TNCOME TAX . . APPELLAhIT VERSUS FULKANTJHA'.'RE5Po!\IDENT (9) lrA L899/20LO I, coMMlssloNER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLAT{T VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES . .RESPONDEI{T (r.o) lrA Lgs7lzOLO COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . . APPEI-LANT VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTR.IES PVT. LTD. .RESPONDEIUT (11) ITA L958/2OI.O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPEI-LANT -l 'ERSUS ZENELIT{I LEATI{ER WEAR .R.E5PONDENT (L2) ITA L9s9/20LO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPEI.LANT VERSUS RICHA APPAR,ELS . .RESPONDEI{T (13) L96O/2Ot O COMMISSIOT{ER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS KAPOORINDUSTRIES 2011:DHC:11683-DB

1 (14) ITA 198O/2O1O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPEI-LAI{T VERSUS AI.IUJA RADlos . .RESPoI\DENT (1s) trA 2o7 4|2OLO COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS " "RESPONDENT (16) lrA L4l20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . ' APPELLAIUT .J VERSUS SAIUGEETA.IAINI ' "RESPONDEnIT (17) lrA Ls/20L1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANIT VERSUS THER TECI.I , .. .R'ESPOI{DENIT (L8l lrA 67l20L1 COMMISSIONER. OF INCOME TAX . APPELLAIVT ,, 4 VERSUS PUROLATOR. INDIA LTD. . . 'RESPONIDEI{T (LgI ITA L77I2OLL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ' . APPEL!-ANT VERSUS BALDEV RAJ jAGGI . . .RESPOIVDENT 2011:DHC:11683-DB

a ? ,(x ,(W U COMMISSIONIER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELI-ANT VERSUS INDUGUPTA '; 'RESPONDENIT (21) lrA L8t/201L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANIT VERSUS SANGEETAJAIN ...RESPONIDENT Qzl ftA 1"82120LT COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . APPELLANT VERSUS CLCCORPORATION ,..RESPONIDENT (231 trA LA4{20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANIT VERSUS CLCCORPORATION ...REsPONDENT (24) ITA L85/20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ' APPELLA!\T VERSUS VIKASKAI-RA ...RESPONDENIT (251 trA- L87|20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS ANI,.U GOEL .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02 '20II Decision Delivered On: 18.02'20II (26r tr:p. 72312009 OF TAX ' APPELLANT 4 2011:DHC:11683-DB

) I 1J .VERSUS PRIYANIKA OVERSEAS P. I.TD' . . .RESPOI\IDEIUT couNSEL FoR rHE REVENU E' V; :T;Hriil?il"il'rlHi,l"5 t''T3[f,i!?: Standing Counsel with Mr' Amit Srivastava' Advocate couNSEL FORTHE ASSESSEES:Mr. Ajay vohra, Advocate with Mr' Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla,' Mr. Prakash Kumar 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 :. FloN'Bl-E 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.K. SIKRI, I. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. FEBR,UAdV TA, }OTL, skb J .K.5lKRl) JUDGE M.L,MEI{T'A) 2011:DHC:11683-DB

' * INI "d-l-tE l-l!Gg-l co[.0RT oF DE + (x) []fA x2l2011 COMMISSIONER, OF IhXCOME TAX VERSUS PARAMOI,.IhXT IMPEX PVT. LTD. \ (21 rrA 4O4l2O1,9 COMMISSIONIER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS AR.IAIV IMPEX PVT. LTD. _ I (3) lrA 708/20Lo J udgm , Decisi C coMMrssnoNNER oF rhxcoME T'AX VERSUS SPEI\ITEX I N DI..I STR,[E5 LTD. (4) rTA 793/20L0 COMMISSIONXER, OF IT{COME TAX VERSUS Pt-t!!-co EXPoRTS. (s) trA e.,27 tz.Eno COMMISSNONNER OF INilCOME TAX VERSUS Pt-{tLco EXPOR,ITS (6) rTA L080/20L0 COMMISSIONIER, OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (7) rTA r.886/2OXO COMMISSIONUER OF IhNCOME T'AX i-lI I I I ! AT NEW DELI-II nt Reserved on: 1Q.02.2011 n Delivered On: 18.02.20]-1 . . . APPEN.LAhIT . . RESPOI\IDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENIT . . APPEL[-AI\!T . . .RESPOIVDEhIT . . . APPELI-AhIT . . .RESPONDENIT . . APPE[.I.Ah!T ..RESPONDENT . . APPE!.LAhIT ..RESFOhIDENIT . APPE[-!.4[\IT 2011:DHC:11683-DB

VERSUS N ITI N! K[,.iMAR. S/\DI-I (8) rrA 3.887/2OL0 COMMISSNO[UER. OF IIUCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR I NN D[..ISTR,I E5. . (9) rrA L896/2OLO > cofvltMlssloNER oF INCOME TAX VERSUS Fr,.t[- KANT',.XT-rA t- (r.O), ITA X.899/20L0 COMMISSIOilXER OF INNCOME TAX VERSUS PA[. ENITERPR.NSES (!.1) ITA XesTlzOlO COMMISSIONER. OF IIUCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEERI IIUDI'IsTR,IEs PVT. N.TD, . | (x2) tTA r.gsE/2OrLO COMMISSNOhXER OF IRICOME TAX VERSUS ZENI E!.INX I LEAT'I{ ER, WEAR. (13) ITA 19s9/20n0 COMMISSIONIER OF IRICOME TAX VERSUS RICI-flA APPAREtr-s ( 14) r.960/20r.O L1 ..RESPONDENT . . APPEI-I.ANT ..RESPONXDERIT . . APPELLAI{T . . "RESPONiDENT . . . APPEI.!.AX\IT ..RESPOhXDENT . . APPEI-I-AI\[T ..R,EsPONDENT . . . APPE[.!.ANT ..RESPONDEI\JT . . . APPE!-I-ANIT ..RESPOIVDENT 2011:DHC:11683-DB

v COMMISSIONER. OF INNCOME TAX VERSUSJ KAPOOR INNDUSTRIES _ (tul lrA x.98o/2010 COMMISSIONER OF IIUCOME TAX .VERSUS Ar-flu.lA RADIOS ' (X,6) ITA 2O74lzDniA COMMISSNONXER OF IRICOME TAX VERSUS SI-XOREWALA OVERSEAS (L7) rr4 14/20L:!. COMMISSIOhJER OF IhICOME TAX VERSUS SATUGEETA JAINn (L8l lTA Ls/20LL- COMMNSSIONER OF INCOME TI\X VERSUS LEATI.IER TEChI (n9) NTA 67l20nx- COMMISSIONXER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS PI,J ROI.ATOR lNN D]A [-TD. (2A\ WA L7V lzon"L COMMISSIOAIER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS EAI.DEV RAJ JAGGI (2L) ITA r.78l20Xr. ...APPE'-'-ANT \lz' . . .RESPONIDENT " . APPEI-LANT . . R,ESPOIVDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPOIUDENT . . APPELLAI\NT . . .RESPORIDENT . . APPEI.LANNT . . "RESPOhIDENT' . . APPELLANT' . . .RESPOt{DENIT . . APPELI-A]\IT , . ,RESPONDEIUT 2011:DHC:11683-DB

COMMISSIONER, OF INNCOME TAX VERSUS I[\!DU G[..!PTA (221. lrA- L81,12OJ,7 COMMISS[O[{ER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS SANTGEETA JAIhI (23) rrA x82l20Xn . COMMISSIOIUER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS '-l c!_c coRPoRATlor{ C (24) ITA XE4/20L1 COMMISSIOhNER OF IIUCOME T'AX VERSUS CLC CORPORATIOhI (2s) ITA I_E5/20L1 COMMISSIORNER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS I VIK^AS KALRA '@ COMM[ssIONXER OF TNJCOME TAX . . VERSUS AN[.oj GOEL (271 t'TA 72312009 COMMISSIONER OF IIUCOME TAX I luosmAn DecisiQn ln- . . APPEI.[-A[\IT t Reserved on: 10.02.2OII Delivered On: 18 .02.2OII . . .RESPONIDENIT . , APPE[.[.A[VT . . .R,ESPOhIDEI\IT . . APPELLAIVT . . .RESPONIDENT . . APPEI.LANT . . .RESPOIUDEIUT . . APPEI.LANT " . .R.EsPONDEIUT . , APPFLI-,qNT' . "RESPONDENIT' . , APPELI-AT{T 2011:DHC:11683-DB

\l ilt VERSUS PRIYANNKA OVER.SEAS P. I-T'D. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal S Ms. Suruchi Standing C Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay V Mr. Somna Mr, Manish Dayal, Mr. P Nair and Mr Gupta, Ad Poonam Ahu CORAM :- HONI',BLE MR. .lusT'lCE A.K. S[ HOnX',BLE MR,. .!u5'{'[CE M"[-. ME 1. Whether Reporters of Local ne to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter Whether the Judgment should A.K. 5[KRI, l. 1, All these appeals involved commo of convenience, we can reproduce the q these appeals:- "(a) Whether on a correc relevant statutory provisions law in directing the As deduction under section 80H of "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of was .justified in law in im assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Secti respect of DEPB Credit util 2. 3. 'tl .' 2. The orders passed by the Tribun because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the ITA case of Topman Expart Vs. ,TO flTA N dated L1'n August, 2009.1, By that judg t\ . . .RESPOhIDENT whney, Mr. Abhishel< Maratha, Tripath i,Sr. Srivastava, garwal, Mr. Anupam unsel with Mr. Amit a, Advocate with Mr, l(avita Jha, Shukla, Mr. Prakash Kumar and Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit kaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijaY Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh ate with Mr. Rl(. Aggarwal, Ms. , Advocates. pers may be allowed not? reported in the Digest? question of law. For the sake law framed in one of tions of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n ing Officer to allow C of the Act in respect present case, Tribunal iedly holding that the deduction as per the 3 of Section 80HHC in by the assessee?" all these cases are brief has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the 57 69llv1um./2006 decided on nt, the Special Bench of the 2011:DHC:11683-DB

Tribunal has held that the face value of D (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, th DEPB is filed with the competent auth profit in sale of DEPB representing the e over its face value is liable to be conside sale. I. ' t' Thb Revenue had filed the apPeal i Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Courtl;has reversed th the judgment of the Bombay High Court af trncome Tax Vs. Katrpataru Colours 4. Since the Tribunal had simply follo Topman Exports (supra) which stands order passed by the Tribunal in all these to the Tribunal to decide these appeal account factual position in all these cases 5. These appeals stand disposed of on FEBRI,.]ARY L8, zoLL, skb I \t PB is chargeable to tax u/s 2B is, when the application for rity pursuant to exPorts and ess of sale proceeds of DEPB u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its the High Court Adjudicate at he Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and s reported as Com rnissioner Chernicatrs, 328 ITR 457. ed Special Bench decision in over ruled, we set aside the ses and remit the cases back on merits after tal<ing into bove terms. JUDGE (M.L.MEr-rTA) JUDGE 2011:DHC:11683-DB

CIT vs. SANGEETA JAIN

Cases cited in this judgment