Commissioner Of Income Tax-I,Chennai v. M/S.amsteel Casting Pvt. Ltd.,1C, Prince Apartments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.596 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. .. Appellant/Respondent -vs- M/s.Amsteel Casting Pvt. Ltd.,1C, Prince Apartments,59, Ormes Road, Kilpauk,Chennai-600 010.PAN: AAACA 5352Q.. Respondent/Appellant Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961against the order dated 13.11.2009 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai inI.T.A.No.1713/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 2001-02Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax AppealsIII, chennai 34 made in ITA.NO.107/2006-2007/ A III dated26.04.2007 andAgainst the order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I(1), chennaimade in PA/GIR NO. AAACA 53520/AX 4-292,dated 24.03.2006For Appellant:Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar,Senior Standing Counsel:assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani,Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent :Mr.A.S.Sriraman,for Mr.A.Sridhar****** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue underSection 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directedagainst the order dated 13.11.2009, passed by the IncomeTax AppellateTribunalBench'A',ChennaiinI.T.A.No.1713/Mds/2007 for the assessment year 2001-02. 2.The above appeal was admitted, on 19.07.2010, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthe face value of DEPB is chargeable on taxon accrual basis and that the profit on saleof DEPB representing the excess of saleproceeds of DEPB over its face value isliable to be consider u/s.28(iiid) at thetime of its sale?(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal was right in not holdingthat the scheme of DEPB is not an automaticbenefit to an exporter in the form of cashassistance, but arises only on makingapplication to the concerned authoritypursuant to exports and is in the nature of'benefit of perquisite arising out ofbusiness' and therefore is chargeable to taxu/s.28(iv)?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned JuniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/Revenue; andMr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.A.Sridhar, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.It is submitted by the learned Senior StandingCounsel that the substantial questions of law framed forconsideration have been answered against the Revenue by theHon'ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports vs. CIT reported in(2012) 342 ITR 0049 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court heldthat when DEPB is sold by a person, his profit on transferof DEPB would be the sale value of DEPB less its face valuewhich represents the cost of the DEPB and not the entire sum received by him on such transfer and DEPB is chargeableas income under Clause (iiib) of Section 28 in the year inwhich such person applied for DEPB credit against theexports whereas the profit on transfer of DEPB by thatperson is chargeable as income under Clause (iiid) ofSection 28 in his hands in the year in which he makes thetransfer. 5.Following the above decision, this tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions of law are answeredagainst the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle I(1), Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai.+1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate SR.No.72490 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar , Advocate SR.No. 72376T.C.A.No.596 of 2010A.SK(15/10/2019)