MARIGOLD IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 17(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7683/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 November 2017AY 2002-033 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the issue was covered against the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in their own case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2002-03 challenged the denial of deduction under Section 80HHC on the sale of DEPB license. The issue had been restored to the AO in a previous round, who then decided against the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the admissibility of deduction under Section 80HHC on the sale of DEPB license. The secondary issue was whether the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case was binding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2002-03 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-29/RG-17/237/10-11 dated 26/08/2011. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s ITA.No.7683/Mum/2011 Marigold Impex Assessment Year-2002-03 143(3) read with Section 254 & 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30/12/2010. None has appeared for assessee despite being provided with many opportunities of being heard. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative [DR]. The Ld. DR has placed reliance on the stand of Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the issue stood covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

2.

We have considered the same. It is observed that the issue under appeal is admissibility of deduction u/s 80HHC on sale of DEPB license. The issue, in first round of appeal, was restored to the file of Ld. AO, by this Tribunal with certain directions. However, Ld. AO decided the issue against the assessee by following judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 & 2003-04. The action of Ld. AO has since been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 26/08/2011.

3.

In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the stand of Ld. CIT(A) since it has already been noted by lower authority that the issue stood covered against the assessee in his own case by jurisdictional High Court. Nothing contrary is available on record.

4.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th November, 2017.

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →