CIT vs. CLC CORPORATION

* THE HBGH 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 PHSLCO 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 ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Page 1 of 5 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) 8TA 1887/2010 COMMSSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SCAPOOR INDUSTRIES. IS) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FOL SCANT JHA (9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (10) 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 BNCOME TAX VERSUS RiCHA APPARELS (13) 1960/2010 COMMISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters' . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT , . APPELLANT Page 2 of 5

(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 PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT ; . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 5

(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 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 VIKAS 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 ITA.No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELLANT Page 4 of 5

•VERSUS PRIYAfSSKA OVERSEAS P. LTD. . . .RESPONDEiSIT 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. 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 HON'BLE |V|R. JUST0CE A.K. SBKR! 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. SaKRI. I. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb (A.IC. JUDGE [M.L.MEHTA) jyOGE- J ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 5 C

IN THE HiG'H COU^T OF. (1) BTA 12/2011 Judgm Decisi COMMISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX VERSUS PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD.. , (2) BTA 404/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX-PVT. LTD. (3) ITA 708/2010 CdMMJSSDONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. C4) BTA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF SNCOME TAX VERSUS •PHILCO EXPORTS. (5)- BTA 927/2010 COMMBSSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ff^HILCO EXPORTS (6) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. • (7) BTA 1886/2010 ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters Bnt Reserved on: 10.02.2011 on Delivered On: 18.02.2011 . . . APPELLANT . . RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT .•. APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT Page 1 of 6 1-

VERSUS mrm komar sadh m ITA 1887/2010 ' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDOSTRIES. , (9) PTA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FOL KAUJJHA (10) ITA 1899/201Q COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (11) ITA 1957/2010' COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (12) ITA 1958/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELINS LEATHER WEAR ' (13) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICHA APPARELS (14) 1,960/2010 ITANo, ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters IS- .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT V. . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT .... APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 6

I CONBVSiSSiONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS iCAPOOR IWDOSTRiES (15) CTA 1980/2010) I COMMSSSiONER OF ilSiCOME TAX VERSUS RADIOS (16) BTA 2074/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS ITA 14/2011 COMMISSIONER OF SNCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA iTA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH (19) BTA 67/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ROROLATOR INDIA LTD. (20) BTA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI (21) ITA 178/2011 ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters • 13- .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT JIT , .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 6

COMMiSSiOMER OF DMCOME TAX VERSUS GUPTA (22) 8TA 181/2011 COMNiSSiOiSfiER OF INCOME TAX SAMGEETAJAIN 182/2011 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) ITA 184/2011 ' COMMISSIONER OF'INCOME TAX , VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (25) ITA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VI6CAS BCALRA (26) ITA 187/2011 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 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (27) ITA 723/2009 " COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITANo. ITA 12/2011 ors.connected matters „ APPELLANT Page 4 of 6

VERSUS PRIYANKA OVERSEAS P, LTD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Ss Ms. Suruchi Standing Cc Advocate. . . .RESPOMDE5SST ' whney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, ^ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. unsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Voh Mr. Somnath Mr. Manish Dayal, Mr. Pa Nair and Mr Gupta, Advo Poonam Ahuj CORAM HOSSI'BLE MR. JOSTBCE A.SC. SliCR HON'BLE MR. JOSTDCE MX. MEH 1. Wliether Reporters of Local new to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter o 3. Whether the Judgment should b 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. TA papers may be allovyed r not? Breported in the Digest? A.K. SBKRL L > 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 impli assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Sectio respect of DEPB Credit utilize question of law. For the sake estions of law framed in one of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n ssing Officer to allow rIC of the Act in respect e present case,-Tribunal iedly holding that the -Q deduction as per the n 3 of Section 80HHC in d by the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the Tribunal in all these cases are brief because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the ITAT case of Topman Export \/s. STO [ITA N dated 11''" August, 2009.]. By that judgifi ITA No. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the 3. 5769/Mum./2006 decided on ent, the Special Bench of the Page 5 of 6

Tribunal has held that the face value of d£ (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, thb 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 t is, when the application for rity pursuant to exports, and cess of sale proceeds of DEPB d u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal in the High Court Adjudicate at Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Court has reversed th^ the judgment of the Bombay. High Court of Smcome Tax Us. Kafpataru CoSomrs 4. Since the Tribunal had simply follow topman Exports (supra) which stands order passed by the Tribunal in all these c to ..the Tribunal to decide these appeal^ account factual position in all these cases. the Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and is reported as CommBsssoiner Chemicals, 328 ITR 451. ved Special Bench decision in over ruled, we set aside the ases and remit the cases back on merits after taking into 5. These appeals stand disposed of on above terms. FEBROART 18, 2011, skb iTANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters (A.K.SIKRB) JUDGE Page 6 of 6