DABUR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1107/2007HC DelhiDLHC01118208200701 September 2008Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision. This was based on a prior judgment of the High Court which had sustained the ITAT's order for a different assessment year.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute deductions under Sections 80-IB and 80-HHC. The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal, relying on its previous judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT correctly directed the recomputation of deductions under Sections 80-IB and 80-HHC by withdrawing depreciation, considering changes in law since the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mahindra Mill.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB,Section 80-HHC,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

REPORTABLE

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on : 13.08.2008 %

Judgment delivered on : 01 .09.2008

ITA 1107/2007

DABUR INDIA LIMITED

..... Applicant

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

..... Respondent NEW DELHI

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant

: Mr Pankaj Jain For the Respondent

: Mr R. D.Jolly

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1.

This is an Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to in short as the „Act‟) against the judgment dated 5.4.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to in short as the „ITAT‟) in ITA No. 3907/Del/2004 in respect of assessment year 2001-02. Before the Tribunal the Revenue had, amongst others, raised the following grounds, which are, also in issue before us:- “1.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction under section 80-IB in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s order in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra Mill, 243 ITR 56 ignoring the facts that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of section 34(1). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed deduction u/s 80-HHC by withdrawing depreciation in view of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s order in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra Mills, 243 ITR 56, ignoring the fact that the said decision of the Apex Court pertains to A.Y. 1974-75 and since then the law has changed by omission of Section 34(1).”

2.

The Tribunal by its impugned judgment allowed the Appeal of the Revenue in respect of the afore-mentioned grounds by relying on its judgment

dated 31.1.2007 for assessment year 2000-01 passed in ITA No. 1063/Del/2004. 3. In view of the fact that by our judgment dated 1.9.2008 we have sustained the judgment of the Tribunal dated 31.1.2007 passed in ITA No. 1063/Del/2004, the present Appeal has to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

September 01, 2008 mb

More judgments on Section 80-IB

All 340 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →