Topman Exports v. CIT

342 ITR 49Supreme Court of India2012#868 most cited

What is Topman Exports v. CIT authority for?

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Topman Exports v. CIT · 342 ITR 49 · Section 28 · Section 80HHC · export incentives · DEPB income · Duty Entitlement Pass Book · advance license benefits · taxability on accrual basis · profit on sale of DEPB · 80HHC deduction · business income

Also reported as

18 Taxmann.com 1203 SCC 593205 Taxmann 119247 CTR 353

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80HHCSection 147Section 148Section 28Section 43BSection 115JA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 80hsection 80hhcsection 80hhsection 28liable to taxsection 80double taxationsection 37section 154previous yearsection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Topman Exports v. CIT

Nulux Engineers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2073/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बिाम/ Nulux Engineers Dcit Cir 20(2) 5-Beach Queen, Mumbai 33- J.P Road, Versova, V. Mumbai-400061 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafn1423C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Manish Shah Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2073/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2001-02, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Order Dated 30.08.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Manish ShahFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari , DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 28Section 80H

…ions and the total income re-assessed remained unchanged at Rs.61,72,060/-. The assessee filed rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act on 11.02.2013 with Revenue by relying on decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports v. CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49(SC) praying for grant of deduction u/s 80HHC wherein the assessee pointed out that face value of DEPB is in the nature of „cash assistance‟ u/s 28(iiib) of the 1961 Act and accordingly 3rd proviso to Section 80HHC(3) does not apply to the case of the assessee. The said rectification application was rejected by Ld. AO vide orders dated 30.08.2013 p…

Movement Impex Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5085/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Section 143(3)

…orders for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 to the concerned Chartered Accountant for further appeals in for all the assessment years in respect of all proprietary concerns and got relief as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Topman Export 342 ITR 49. A copy of the order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2000-01 & 2001-02 in respect of these years are placed on record. We find that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was delivered on 08.02.2012, judgment was reported on 26.03.2012 in part 2 of ITR Volume 342 wherein the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on by AO in the case…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta

The appeals are allowed

ITA/907/2017HC Delhi20 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 263

…ssessments. Learned counsel highlighted that the export incentives were linked to the export sales and could not have been ignored. It had earned gross profit of `7,19,11,427/-. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decision in Topman Exports v. CIT 342 ITR 49 where the Court held that export incentives were part of business profits. With respect to the statement of credits from entries such as Mangal traders and Yogmaya Traders, learned counsel submitted that the bank account of Sh. Jaidev Gupta was duly noticed. As far as the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was concerned, the decision in…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2442/KOL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Mrs. Arati Debnath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden,Addl. CIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147

…rom the sale of DEPB licences is an integral part of the business of the assessee and the income therefrom is the regular business income of the assessee. The assessee cited the judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49 (Se) wherein it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the income from sale of DEPB licences is the income from regular business and is eligible for exemption U/S 80HHC. Conclusion- 5.1 Exemption U/S 10A/10AA- The Honourable ITAT has decided in the case of the assessee for the AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 that the business of blending of te…

ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Rabindra Nath Sikdar, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1097/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 28Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 Income Tax Officer, V/s. Shri Rabindra Nath Ward-51(4), Uttarapan Sikdar, AJ-253, Sector-II, Complex, Ultadanga, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- Maniktala Civic Centre, 700 091 Sch.VII/M, Kolkata-54 [PAN No.AOTPS 2045 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of…

Goodricke Group Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2015[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 33A

…ion u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the income referred to in Clauses (iiic) and (iiid) of section 28 included in the profit on sale of DEPB licences by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT (342 ITR 49). 1.1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow the increased deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in accordance with the first and third provisos to the said section in respect of the income as referred to in clauses (iiic) and (iiid) of section 28 of the Act and…

Genom Biotech Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -40, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 4656 to 4658/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06) ITA No.4661 to 4664/Mum/2014 (Assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10) M/s. Genom Biotech Pvt. ACIT Central Ltd. Vs. Circle-40 907, Filix Building Room No. 653 Opp. Asian Paints Aayakar Bhavan LBS Marg, Bhandup(W) M.K. Road Mumbai-400 078. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5336 to 5342/Mum/2014 (Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10) ACIT Central M/s. Genom Biotech Pvt. Circle-40 Vs. Ltd. Room No. 653 907, Filix Build…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Overseas Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5426/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…se of Rs. 1,14,00,640/- and SIL of Rs. 4, 25,000/- are entitled for benefit of Sec 80HHC. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has pointed out that this issue has now been settled in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 (Supreme Court).This decision supreme court has reversed the findings of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and chemicals 328 ITR 421(BOM) in which view was taken against the tax payers. Further the counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO noted that such benefit should not be granted to the assessee in view o…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. L.T. Overseas Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4478/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…se of Rs. 1,14,00,640/- and SIL of Rs. 4, 25,000/- are entitled for benefit of Sec 80HHC. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has pointed out that this issue has now been settled in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 (Supreme Court).This decision supreme court has reversed the findings of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and chemicals 328 ITR 421(BOM) in which view was taken against the tax payers. Further the counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO noted that such benefit should not be granted to the assessee in view o…

L T Overseas Ltd., Gurgaon vs. CIT (Appeals)- VII, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4191/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…se of Rs. 1,14,00,640/- and SIL of Rs. 4, 25,000/- are entitled for benefit of Sec 80HHC. The ld. Counsel of the assessee has pointed out that this issue has now been settled in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 (Supreme Court).This decision supreme court has reversed the findings of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and chemicals 328 ITR 421(BOM) in which view was taken against the tax payers. Further the counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO noted that such benefit should not be granted to the assessee in view o…

M/S. Groz Net Industries, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6241/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Groz Net Industries, Vs Acit, C-717, New Friends Colony, Circle-22(1), New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Aaafg8454E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms Rano Jain Ca Shri Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By : Shri S.K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing: 9.3.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.5.2017 Order

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 80H

…facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the income assessed taken by the AO at Rs.1,76,62,349/- is incorrect in view of the wrong computation of deduction under Section 80HHC post- judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC). 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without giving any finding on the merits regarding concealment of income. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rej…

DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata, Darjeeling vs. Narendra Tea Company (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1517/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10A

…rom the sale of DEPB licences is an integral part of the business of the assessee and the income therefrom is the regular business income of the assessee. The assessee cited the judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49 (Se) wherein it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the income from sale of DEPB licences is the income from regular business and is eligible for exemption U/S 80HHC. Conclusion- 5.1 Exemption U/S 10A/10AA- The Honourable ITAT has decided in the case of the assessee for the AY 2004-05 to 2007-08 that the business of blending of tea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2166/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2166/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Dcit, Vs Cornell Overseas (P) Ltd., Circle-3(1), B-235, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc0034F Assessee By : Ms. Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 28.02.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 28Section 32Section 80HSection 90C

…,73,524/- on account of DEPB. Hence, this matter should be remanded back to the AO to examine the profit element in the sale of DEPB License and to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Topman Exports 342 ITR 49 (SC).” 8. In her rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the ITAT for the assessment year 2002-03 in assessee’s own case and the issue is now covered in assessee’s favour by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2102 /DEL/2016 ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-12 Braham Dev Gupta, vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 1043/2, Ward No. 9, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Flat No. UFG-I, Minto Road, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. (PAN: AAFPB5907Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CA Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR Date of hearing: 31.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 13.04.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : In this appeal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nyasa, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2212/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2001-02)

Section 28Section 80H

…in respect of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on DEPB receipts which falls u/s 28(iiib) & 28(iiid) the Act. As per the submissions made by the Ld. AR, this issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of M/s Topman Exports Vs. CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC) as well as by latest judgment of CIT Vs. Avani Exports 119 DTR 352 (SC). 3. The Ld. DR did not controvert the same. 4. We have heard both the parties. The issue under consideration is covered by Apex Court decisions in case of Avani Exports and Topman Exports 2 in favour of the assessee. The CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Office…

Neel Kanth Gum & Chemicals, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 285/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28Section 80I

…7 ITR 218. He submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases where the matter of sale of DEPB (Duty Entitled Pass Book) credit was remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with law laid down in the case of Topman Exports (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC). He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Nissan Exports Vs. CIT (2014) 360 ITR 93 (SC) and Global Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 360 ITR 117 (SC). Ld. AR submitted that in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC), it was held that DEPB credit is “cash assistance” receivable by a person against export unde…

DCIT 20(2), Mumbai vs. M.M. Internaitonal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2890/MUM/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 80H

…justified and in accordance with law and facts. Ld. CIT(A) has followed the aforesaid judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court while deciding this issue. This view is also supported by the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT 342 ITR 49 (SC). No contrary view was brought before us by the Ld. DR. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we do not find any justification to make interference in the well reasoned findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, his order is confirmed. 7 I.T.A. No.2890/Mum/2015 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was prono…

Allana Frozen Foods Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessees’ appeal in ITA no

ITA 4056/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4056/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) Allana Frozen Foods Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Allana House, Income Tax – Circle – 1(1), V. Allana Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Colaba, 5 Th Floor, Mumbai – 400 001. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaaca 5974 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…[156/2006 renumbered as 10187/2012] and the judgment of the ITA 4056/Mum/2011, ITA 5534/Mum/11 5 ITA 5548/Mum/2011, ITA 4121/Mum/11, ITA 5533/Mum/2011, ITA 5518/Mum/11, ITA 4185/Mum/11 & ITA 4110/Mum/11 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports reported at 342 ITR 49 and delivered on 08/02/2012. We pray that the above ground be kindly admitted since it emanates from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that these additional grounds of appeal are legal grounds and it goes to the root of the matter and need to be admitted in the interest of ju…

M/S. Goyal Impex & Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for - statistical purposes

ITA 1168/DEL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Sh. C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2001-02 M/S. Goyal Impex & Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Ltd., 1291, Sec-C, Pkt.-1, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg4105D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh Ved Jain & Ashish Chadha, Cas & Mr. Ashish Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2016

Section 80H

…ds of appeal that income on account of 2 AY: 2001-02 DEPB ius eligible while computing deduction under Section 80HHC and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49 (SC).” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is an exporter engaged in manufacturing and trading of hosiery goods, textiles etc. The assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2001, declaring nil income after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC. The deduction under Section 80HHC has been claimed at Rs.17,19,287/…

Sans Frontiers, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Sans Frontiers, Ito, Ward – 32(3), 171, (New No.36), New Delhi. Western Avenue, Vs. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan : Aacfs 1846 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 28Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-I”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sans Frontiers, ITO, Ward – 32(3), 171, (New No.36), New Delhi. Western Avenue, Vs. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. PAN : AACFS 1846 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish Khosla, Adv. Respondent by : Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 05-12-2016 Date of pronouncement : 09-12-2016 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New…