Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi - V v. M/S.purolator Lndia Limited

r,"-. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW + l.T.A. No.537/2OO7 o/o Date of Decision= 22.O3.2OLL Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - V .... AppellantThrough: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate for theRevenue. Versus M/s.Purolator lndia Limited Limited Through: Mr.Amit Sachdeva, Advocate_:! -_ _,_ ^,_.._ A _ [.... ][Respondent] CORAM:HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIHON',BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. ' Whether reporters of Lbcal of Lbcal Lbcal [papers ][may ][be] Whether reporters of Lbcal of Lbcal Lbcal ' allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3, Whether the [judgment ]should be reported inthe Digest?the Digest? @ 1. This appeal involves the following [questions of ][law:-] "(a) Whether on a correct interpretation of therelevant statutory provisions, Tribunal was [justified]in law in directing the Assessing Officer to [allow]deduction under section 80HHC of [the ][Act ][in]respect of "profit" on sale of [DEPB?] (b)Whether on the facts of the present case,Tribunal was [justified ]in law in impliedly [holding ][that]the assessee would be entitled to [deduction as ][per]the first proviso below sub-Section 3 of [Section] ,t. 80HHC in respect of DEPB Credit utilized by theassessee?" 2. The order passed by the Tribunal in this appeal is brief becauseof the reason that the Tribunal has simply followed [(which ]it wassupposed to) the decision of the ITAT Special [Bench, Mumbai ][in ][the]case of Topman Export Vs. rfo flTA No. 5769/Mum.12006 decided ondated 1Lth August, 2009.1. By that [judgment, ]the [Special ][Bench ][of the]Tribunal has held that the face value of DEPB is chargeable to tax u/s28 [(iiib) ]at the time of accrual of income, that is, when the applicationfor DEPB is filed with the competent authority [pursuant ]to [exports ][and]profit in sale of DEPB representing the excess of sale proceeds of DEPBover its face value is liable to be considered u/s [28(iiid) at ][the time ][of]its sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal in the High Court Adjudicate [at]Bombay against the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of theITAT. The Bombay High Court has reversed the decision of [the ][Tribunal]and the [judgment ]of the Bombay High Court is reported [as]Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru [Colours ][and]Chemicals-, 328 ITR 457. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply followed Special Bench [decision ][in]Topman Expotts [(supra) ]which stands over ruled, [we set ][aside the]ITA No.537/2OO7Page 2 of 3 order passed by the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal todecide this appeals on merits after taking into account [factual ][position]in all this case. 5. The appeal stands disposed of on above terms. MARCH 22,?OLL Dev -G-<4M.L.MEHTA, J. tTA No.5t7/2OO7