CIT vs. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD

>_\ I/p '< IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEL!-{I + Judgment Reserved on: I0'02'20LI Decision Delivered On: IB.O2.2OII (1) trA 4O4|2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT . VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX PVT..LTD. . 'RESPONDENT (2) rTA 7O8l2Or.O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. . . . APPEI.LANT . . ,RESPONDENT O (3) rrATsltzoro COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS.. (4) trA 927I2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS P!.IILCO EXPORTS a (s) lrA 1o8o/2o1o I- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. lrA No. ITA 4O4|2OIO & ors.connected matters (6) rTA r.886/20r.0 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAi( APPELI.ANT VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH . .RESPONDEIVT t . . . APPEI.I.ANT . . .RESPONDENT t . , APPELLANT ..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) trA, L887 lzOLO ( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELI.ANT VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. ' .RESPONDENT (8) rrA L896/20r.0 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . ' APPELLANT VERSUS FUL KANT JHA . . .RESPONDENT (e) rrA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS PAL ENTERPR,ISES . .RESPONDENT (L0) rrA r.9s7l20Lo COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPE!-LANT VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. . .R,ESPONDENT (11) rTA L958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPEI.LANT VERSUS ZENELINI,LEATHER WEAR . .R,ESPONDENT (L2) rTA L9s9/2Or.O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS RICHA APPARELS . .RESPONDENT 1rs) L96O|2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT VERSUS KAPOOR. INDUSTR,IES ...RESPONDENT rA No. ITA 40412010 & ors.connected matters Page 2 of 5

(14) rrA I.98O/2O1O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TI\X VERSUS AHUJI\ RADIOS (15) trA,2O7412OLO COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS (r.6) rTA L4l20L1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN (l.7) rrA L5/20Lr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LEATHER TECH VERSUS (L8) rTA 67120r.1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX \.r . . APPELLANT O ! . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDET{T . . APPELLANT R,ESPONDENT . . APPELLANT VERSUS PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. . . .RESPONDENT (LgI ITA L77IZOLL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI . . .RESPONDENT rA No. ITA 4O4|2OLO & ors.connected matters Page 3 of 5

a . (rot ,to ,.rtltott I I COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT ] VERSUS INDU GUPTA . .RESPONDENT . (21) lrA 18r./20L1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS SANGEETI\JAIN . '.RESPONDENT (221 trA L82|20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS CLCCORPORATION ...RESPONDENT (23) lrA L84l20L1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT VERSUS CLCCORPORATION ...RESPONDENT (24) trA L8s/20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELI.ANT VERSUS VIKASKALRA ...RESPONDENT (25) trA L87|20LL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . APPELLANT VERSUS ANUJ GOEL .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.20IL Decision Delivered On: 18.02.207I (26r trL 72312009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT lrA No. ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected matters Page 4 of 5

{o .VERSUS PRIYI\NKA OVERSEAS P. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr' Amit Srivastava, Advocate COUNSELFORTHEASSESSEES: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 :- HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SlKRl 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. StKRt, l. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. o "r-t--,-e%l- -w.t,uEHrn) \ JUDGE FEBRUAR.Y skb L8,?OLL, rA No. ITA 4O4|2OLO & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 5

rg. -i rl I I I I * [N T[-lE hllcl-l coURT oF DEtL[-ll AT NIEW DEI-l-ll t. + ludgmpnt_Reserved on: 10.02 70\I ( t Decisign Delivered On: 18.02.2OII (x) laa x,uzot1. I I coMMlsstoNERoFtNcoMETAX | ...APPELLAhTT I I VERSUS. I PARAMOT.II\OT [MPEX PVT. LTD. , (2) tTA 4O4|2ALO COMMISSIOI\IER OF INICOME T'AX VERSUS " AR.IAN IMPEX PVT. t_T',D. (3) ITA 708120L0 , coMMrssrohrE* oF r*coME rAX VERSUS PENTEX INDI,.!STRIES LTD. (4), ITA 793/2OXO - COMMISS[OhIER OF INCOME -fiAX VERSUS PFiILCO EXPOR,T'S. (s) lTA 927?ALA P!{[LCO EXPOR,T's (6) tTA L080/20r.0 . , : coMMrssroNER oF rh[coME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INI Di,.ISTRIES LTD. , (7) nrA 1886/2OLo cpMMrsslonxER oF lNrcoME TAX , trAtto. ITA I2l20Il & ors.connected matters . . RESPONDEI{T . . . APPELLAIUT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPEI.I.AI\IT . . .RESPONDEI\!T . . . APPELI.ATVT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPEI.I.AhIT ..RESPONDEIUT . . APPELLAIVT ..RESPONIDENIT . APPELLANT Page 1 of 6

VERSUS NIT'IN KI..OMAR SADX-I (8) lrA L887l20r.0 COMMISSIOIVER, OF INICOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR I N DI..! sTR,I ES. (9) rTA L896/2OLO ! COMMISSIOI\IER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS F[,J[- KAI\IT.!!-tA (r.o) rTA I.899/2OXO COMMISSIONIER. OF IhICOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENITERPRISES (LL) rTA 19s7l20X0 COMMISSNOhTER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PR.AVEENI [NDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (T2) rTA r.958/2Or.O COMMIISSIONER OF IIVCOME TAX VERSUS . ZENELINII LEA]TI{ER, WEAR (!.3) rTA Lese/2qx0 COMMISSION\!ER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICI-[A APPAREI.S (n4) r.960/20r.O rrA No. ITA L2120LI & ors.connected matters lL " .RESPOIVDENT . . APPEI-LAIUT ..RESPONXDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONIDENT . . . APPEI-LAINT . .RESPOIUDENT . . APPELI-AI{T ..RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANIT ..RESPOI\trDEhNT . " . APPE!-[.ANT ..RESPOIUDENT Page 2 of 6

t' I I I I I ' coMMrsslotvER oF HVcoME TAX I i VERSUS I I KAPOOR .INDI..!STRIES (rs) rTA r.980/20L0 COMMISSIOhTER, OF INCOME TAX VERSUS Anulln RADros (16) t'tA 2O7412tu^LO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T'AX VERSUS SHOR,EWA!.A OVER,SEAS (L7l tTA X,4|20LL t COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX . VERSUS SANGEETA JAINI (L8) trA Lsl20Xl COMMISStrORUER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS I.EATI-IER TECI-I !r (X9) ITA 67l2onx_ COMMISSIONER OF INICOME TAX VERSUS PUROLATOR INDIA I.TD. (2Ol tTA L77 /2ALL COMMISSIOIVER OF INCOME T'AX VERSUS . EALDEV RAj.nAGGl (2X) rTA r.78l2011L lrA No. ITA L2120II & ors.connected matters ...APPELI-ANT /> . . .RESPOhIDEIVT . . APPELLAI\trT ..REsPO[\|DENXT . . APPELLAIVT . . .RESPOIUDENT . . APPEI.LAIUT' . . .RESPO[\!DEIIT . . APPE!.LAIUT . . .R,ESPOhIDENT' . . APPEI.LANT . . .RE5POI{DENT . . . APPELI.AilIT . " ;RESPONDEIVT Page 3 of 6

COMMISSIONER, OF IAICOME TI\X VERSUS lrupu Gr..0PTA (22) rrA L8X/20LL COMMISS!OA[ER. OF IIVCOME TAX VERSUS SAIUGEETA JAtN (23r ITA 182/20LL .. COMMISSIOhIER, OF INICOME TAX VERSUS -' CLC CORPORATION (241 rrA L84/20-LL COMMISSIOhIER OF INCOME TAX : VERSUS CLC CORPORATIOhI (25t ttR t*U"tnt COMMISSIONXER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS VIKAS KALRA . (26) ITA L87/20LL borqrqlsstoNER oF tnlcoME TAX AN[,J.] GOEL VERSUS (2.7r tTA^ 723120t 9 COMMISSIONIER OF IhICOME TAX rnruo. ITA I21201,I & ors.connected matters Page 4 of 6 ,tv ..APPE!-LAhtr t ( . , .RESPONDENT I Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.201I Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2O1I . . APPELI-ATUT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLAIVT . . .RESPOI\[DENlT . . APPELLAIUT . . .RESPONDENT' . . APPEN.LANT . . .R,ESPONDENT . . APPEL!-ANT .,REsPO]\IDEI\IT . . APPELLAIVT

PR,IYANKA OVERSEAS P. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: VERSUS LTD" Mr. Kamal S Ms. Suruchi Standing Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES:Mr. Ajay Vo Mr. Somnat Mr. Manish Dayal, Mr. P Nair and Mr Gupta, Poonam Ahuj CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JIISTICE A.K. SIK ' HON',Bt-E MR. jUSTICE M.t-. ME Whether Reporters of Local ne to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter 'Whether the Judgment should 1. 2. 3. it ( A.K. SIKRI, [. 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 Ass deduction under.section BOH of "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of t was justified in law in im assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Secti respect of DEPB Credit utiliz 2, The orders passed by the Tribun because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the case of Taprnan Export Vs. tfo |TA N dated 11'n August, 2009.1. By that judg lrA No. ITA L2lzOlI & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 6 whney, Mr. Abhishek arwal, Mr. Anupam nsel with Mr. Amit . . .REsPonnDENT I Maratha, Tripathi,Sr. Srivastava, ITA a, Advocate with Mr. Kavita 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 te with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. , Advocates. A papers may be allowed not? reported in the Digest? question of law. For the sal<e tions of law framed in one of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n sing Officer to allow C of the Act in respect present case, Tribunal iedly holding that the o deduction as per the 3 of Section 80HHC in by the assessee?" I in all these cases are brief has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the . 57691Vum.i2006 decided on ent, the Special Bench of the

Tribunal (iiib) at DEPB is profit in over its sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal i Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Courl has reversed th the judgment of the Bombay High Court FEBRUARY X.8, ?ALL, skb ors.connected matters the High Court Adjudicate at e Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and s reported as Commissioner I I has held that the face value ot Of pg is c I the time of accrual of income, thpt is, w I I filed with the competent authQrity pu I sale of DEPB representing the expess of I face value is liable to be considered u/s 2 tL hargeable to tax uls 28 hen the application for rsuant to exports and sale proceeds of DEPB 8(iiid) at the time of its of Incorne Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours d Chemicals, 328 ITR 457. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply foll ed Special Bench decision in Topman Exparts (supra) which stands over ruled, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in all these ses and remit the cases back on merits after talcing into to the Tribunal to decide these appeal account factual oor,a,on in all these cases 5, These appeals stand disposed of on bove terms. JUDGE (M.L.MEr-rT',A) JUDGE rA No. ITA Lzl2OLl & Page 6 of 6