Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnal v. M/S Mittal Overseas, G.t.road, Sewah, Panipat

Income-tax Appeal No.710 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.710of 2010 Date of decision: 17.12.2010 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal ...Appellant Versus M/s Mittal Overseas, G.T.Road, Sewah, Panipat ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral). 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated27.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench (G), New Delhi in ITA No.2441/Del/2007, for the assessmentyear 2004-05, proposing following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80 HHC on the face value of DEPB inthe case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores inview of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by thetaxation law (Amendment) Act, 2005 withretrospective effect from 1.4.1998? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80 HHC in respect of entire DEPBamount by incorporating the same in computation ofbusiness profit u/s 28 (iiib)?” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter iscovered in favour of the revenue by order of this Court dated16.8.2010 in ITA No.299 of 2010 (Commissioner of Income-TaxVs. M/s F.C.Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd.). 3.In view of the above, following the earlier decision of thisCourt in F.C.Sondhi's case, the matter is remanded to the Tribunalfor fresh decision in accordance with law. It is, however, made clearthat if the respondent-assessee is aggrieved by this, it can approachthis Court. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 17,2010Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge