Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jalandhar-I v. M/S Hansa Export Corporation Basti Nau

ITA No. 402 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-I Versus M/s Hansa Export Corporation Basti Nau ITA No. 402 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.8.2010 ....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 appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 23.10.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) inITA No. 228 (ASR)/2009 for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing toraise following substantial questions of law:- “I.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat the total sale consideration inclusive offace value of DEPB and premium amountreceived thereof represents profit chargeableunder sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the II. III. IV. V. Income Tax Act, 1961? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase 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 section 28(iiid)and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 meansthe difference between the sale price of DEPBand the face value of DEPB ignoring the factthat the entire amount represents the profit inthe 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 section 28(iiid) and28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the facevalue is the cost incurred by the assessee toacquire 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 to ITA No. 402 of 2010 the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRCshould be deducted from the sale proceed forthe 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 Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospectiveeffect from 01.04.1998?” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue states that this Court hasdisposed of identical matter being ITA No. 299 of 2010 (Commissionerof Income Tax v. M/s. F.C. Sondhi), decided on 16.8.2010.3.Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in same terms. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 27, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE