PRAYAS WRITING INSTRUMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of deduction under Section 80IB in respect of interest income, DEPB, and duty drawback is covered against the assessee by the Supreme Court judgment in Liberty India vs. CIT. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was confirmed.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,59,136/- under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The assessee appealed this decision to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the allowability of deduction under Section 80IB for certain types of income, including interest, DEPB, and duty drawback.
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.
- Liberty India v. CIT571 citing317 ITR 218 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 16.12.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-34, Mumbai dated 20.8.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal, assessee raised the following solitary ground which reads as under:- “The Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,136/- u/s 80IB made by the Ld AO which was claimed by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income.”
At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that there is a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, he brought my attention to the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit dated 9.7.2014 and mentioned that there is a reasonable and sufficient reason for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Relevant portion from the said application for condanation of delay dated 16.12. 2014 reads as under:- “4. All the papers were ready for filing and were given to our Chief Accountant, Mr. Mahesh Shah who entrusted to get this appeal filed. He sent all the papers to the Chartered Accountant M/s. Rakesh V Panchmatia & Co. whose mother was unfortunately expired on 4.9.2014 and was highly irregular in office resulted into delay of 28 days. The applicant therefore, is filing the present appeal before your honors with the prayer to condone the delay of 28 days in filing the same and the appeal may be heard on merit.”
On perusal of the above explanation of the assessee in respect of the delay of 29 days, I find, there is a sufficient and reasonable cause which restrained the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time limit. Considering the same, I condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought my attention above ground and mentioned that the only issue involved in this appeal relates to the disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and brought my attention to the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide (AY 2007-2008), dated 3.6.2014 and another order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.2435/M/2015, dated 17.10.2014 and submitted that similar issue ie the allowability of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of DEPB / duty draw back and interest on FDRs were adjudicated by the Tribunal and the same covers to the issues raised in the present appeal. Further, drawing my attention to above grounds of appeal
, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the AY under consideration also disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs. 1,59,136/- u/s 80IB of the Act is the only issue and the same stands covered against the assessee as the said amount consists of above mentioned three kinds of receipts ie interest income; DEPB and duty draw back.
5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) in the assessee’s own case, I am of the opinion the issue raised in the present appeal stands covered against the assessee in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC). Accordingly, the decision taken by the CIT (A) vide para 3 and its sub-paras is confirmed. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026