Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I v. M/S Broadways Overseas Ltd

ITA No. 466 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I Versus M/s Broadways Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 466 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.9.2010 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 466 and 467 of 2010 ascommon questions are involved. 2.ITA No. 466 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 26.11.2009 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Amritsar in I.T.A. No.429(ASR)/2009 for the assessment year2003-04 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat total sale consideration inclusive of facevalue of DEPB and premium amount receivedthereof represents profit chargeable undersections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income TaxAct, 1961? case, the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat total sale consideration inclusive of facevalue of DEPB and premium amount receivedthereof represents profit chargeable undersections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income TaxAct, 1961? II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the III. IV. V. case, the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat profit on transfer of DEPB entitlementrepresents the entire amount inclusive ofpremium of sale of such DEPB? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatthe word “profit” referred to in Sections 28(iiid)and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961means the difference between the sale price ofDEPB and the face value of DEPB ignoring thefact that the entire amount represents the profitin the hands of assessee? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in deducting theface value of DEPB from sale price of DEPBfor calculating profit under Sections 28(iiid) and28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as if theface value is the cost incurred by the assesseeto acquire the DEPB? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatthe word profit referred to in Sections 28(iiid)and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961requires any artificial cost to be interpolated tothe extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRCshould be deducted from the sale proceed for the purpose of determination of deductionunder Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961? VI. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has failed to appreciate thatdeduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961 was rightly computed in accordance withamendment made by the Taxation Laws(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospectiveeffect from 1.4.1998?” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter iscovered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated16.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings andI.T.A. No.299 of 2010 CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, wherein after noticing thejudgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours &Chemicals 2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter was remanded to theTribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders ofthis Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose,we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent,but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have anygrievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 466 of 2010 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I Versus M/s Broadways Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 467 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.9.2010 ....Appellant. 4. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders ofthis Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose,we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent,but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have anygrievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 466 of 2010 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I Versus M/s Broadways Overseas Ltd. ITA No. 467 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.9.2010 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 466 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I v. M/s Broadways Overseas Ltd). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 27, 2010(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)gbsJUDGE