CIT vs. SANGEETA JAIN

:L > O THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (1) ITA 404/2010 COMMISSIONER 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 PHBLCO 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 ITANo. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected nnatters . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT Page 1 of 5 2- Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

(7) BTA 1887/2010 COMMBSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRBES. (8) BTA 1896/2010 COMMSSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FUL KANT JHA (9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSSONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (10) 8TA 1957/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVJ. LTD. (11) ITA 1958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELINI LEATHER WEAR • (12) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RfiCHA APPARELS (13) 1960/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRBES ITANo. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT „ . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 5 3

(14) iTA 1980/2010 COMMSSSIONER 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 PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX :) VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI ITANo. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT „ . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT, . . /RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT .'. APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 5

(20) 8TA 178/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS INDU 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 V0KAS KALRA (25) ITA 187/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANUJ GOEL . . 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITANo. ITA404/2010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELLANT Page 4 of 5 LI

•VERSUS PRIYANKA OVERSEAS P.. LTD, , . .RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kama! 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 Kunnar and Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit Dayal, Mr. Panl<aj Jain, Mr. D.K. Gbyal, Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAN HON'BLE NR. JUSTflCE A.K. SIKR0 HON'BLE IVSR. JUSTBCE M.L. IVIEHTA 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. S8KRI. g. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters JUDGE rMX.MEHTA) JUDGE- Page 5 of 5

THE HIGH COOIRT OF DELHI AT MEW OELHD Judgm Decisi6 (!)• ITA 12/2011 •COlMiMSSSiONEk OF 8NCOME TAX VERSUS PARAMOOMT IMPEX PVT„ LTD., (2) ITA 404/2010 COMNlSSSOfSSER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ARjAN BMPEX PVT. LTD„ (3) JTA 708/2010' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX UNDOSTRIES LTD. (4) ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS. (5) iTA 927/2010 COMHiSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHDLCO EXPORTS (6) ITA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX j VERSUS SPENTipX INDUSTRIES LTD. (7) ITA 1886/2010 ' , ^ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX c ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters •' nt Reserved on: 10.02.2011 n Delivered On: 18.02.2011 .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT APPELLANT Page 1 of 6 1

VERSUS umn KOMAR SADH (8) ETA 1887/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (9) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FUL KANTJHA C10) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (11) ITA 1957/2010 • COMMSSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES 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 ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters $ . .RESPONDENT .APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT , .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 6

GOMMlSSiOiSiER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES (15) PTA 1980/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS AHUJA RADIOS (16) BTA 2074/2Q10 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS (17) ITA 14/2011 COMMDSSDONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA (18) ITA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH ITA 67/2011 COMMfSSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. ' BTA 177/2011 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGfl (21) ITA 178/2011 ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters „ .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT /. .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . , .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 6

/" COMMISSIONER OF DiSSCOME TAX VERSUS GUPTA (22) ITA 181/2011 COMMESSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA (23) ITA 182/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) BTA 184/2011 COMMISSIONER OF iNCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (25) ITA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF iNCOME TAX VERSUS VIKAS BCALRA ITA 187/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ANUJ GOEL . APPELLANT, .RESPONDEMT . „ APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . = .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on:. 10.02.2011 . I Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (27) ITA 723/2009 , i COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters Page 4 of 6 lo

r PRIYAMKA OVERSEAS P. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE; VERSUS Mr. Kamal Sa Ms. Suruchi Standing Cc Advocate. COUNSEL FORTHE ASSESSEESiiVlr. Ajay Voh Mr. Somnath Mr. Manish Dayal, Mr. Pa Nair and' Mr Gupta, Advo Poonam Aiiuj CORAM ' HO^S'BLE NR.jySTICE A.K= SIKR • , HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE MX, MEH 1. VVhether Reporters of Local new to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter o 3. Whether the Judgment should b A.K. SiBCRL 1. 1. All these appeals involved common of convenience, we can reproduce the q 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? „ . „RESPONDEMT- 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. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh ;ate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. a. Advocates. spapers may be allowed , ^ r not? Breported in the Digest? question of law. For the sake liestions of law framed in one of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n ssing Officer to allow HC of the Act in respect (b)Whether on the facts of the present case, Tribunal iedly holding that the ^0 deduction as per the 3 of Section 80HHC in 'by the assessee?" ustified in law in impli assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Section respect of DEPB Credit utilized was 2. The orders passed by the Tribun^ because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the ITA case of Topmam Expoirt Vs. iTO. [ITA N 1 dated 11'" August, 2009.]. By that j ITA No. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters in all these cases are brief has.simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the D. 5769/|Vium./2006 decided on judgment, the Special Bench of the Page 5 of 6

Tribunal has held that the face value of DEPB is chargeable to tax u/s 28 at is, when the application for rity pursuant to exports and cess of sale proceeds of DEPB d u/s 28(iiid) at the time ofits (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, th DEPB is filed with the competent authc profit in sale of DEPB representing the ex over its face value is liable to be consider^ sale. in 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 Bohibay High Court of Smcome Tax Vs. Kalpataimj CoBoisb's a the High Court Adjudicate at the Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and 5. These appeals stand disposed of on FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb iTANo, ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters is reported as CommBSSsomieir Chemseals, 328 ITR 451. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply followed Special Bench decision in Topman 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. (AJCSIKRD) (MX.MEHTA) Page 6 of 6 2^