INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD vs. ADDL. CIT RANGE II,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal agreed with the learned DR to set aside the issue of allowability of deduction under Section 80HHC to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the deduction in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) sustained this disallowance. The appeal was recalled for readjudication of this ground.
What were the issues?
Whether export incentive income from DEPB/DFRC is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC, considering retrospective vs. prospective amendment and Supreme Court rulings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Avani Exports v. CIT56 citing348 ITR 391 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI SMT. BEENA A. PILLAISMT. BEENA A. PILLAI SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi dated 3rd October, 2006.
This appeal was originally decided by the ITAT vide order dated 19th March, 2010. However, the above order was partially recalled vide 23rd order dated May, 2014 in Miscellaneous Application No.89/Del/2013. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal was recalled for readjudication on merits.
Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal reads as under:-
2 ITA-4159/Del/2006
“1. a) That the learned CIT(A) erred, both on facts and in law in sustaining a disallowance of Rs.4,67,11,767/- on account of deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC. b) The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in ignoring all the written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) and sustaining the disallowance made by Assessing Officer without giving any reasons of whatsoever nature as to how the conditions for claiming of deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC has not been fulfilled by the assessee. c) The learned CIT(A) has further erred in holding that to the extent of increase in income in view of disallowances, deduction u/s 80HHC would not increase as the assessee is not entitled to any deduction u/s 80HHC.”
At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer had reduced the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80HHC on the ground that export incentive income received from sale of DEPB license is not eligible for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC. He submitted that this ground of appeal was not pressed at the time of hearing before the ITAT because there was a retrospective amendment in Section 80HHC. However, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. – [2012] 348 ITR 391 (Guj) has held the amendment to Section 80HHC to be prospective. That the Revenue as well as the assessee both have filed appeals before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and, the Hon’ble Apex court in Special Leave Appeal Nos.9273/2013, not only upheld the finding of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Avani Exports & Ors. (supra) that amendment in Section 80HHC is prospective, but further held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC, whether the turnover of the assessee is below `10 crores or above `10 crores. He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer may be directed to allow deduction u/s 80HHC as claimed by the assessee.
3 ITA-4159/Del/2006
Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-determination of deduction u/s 80HHC in the light of the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court.
After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we agree with the submission of the learned DR and set aside the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80HHC to the Assessing Officer. We direct him to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avani Exports & Anr. In Appeal No.9273/2013.
Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is disposed of as above. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17.03.2016.
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026