Commissioner Of [Income ][Tax v. Arjan Impex Pvt. Ltd

u *INTHEHIGHcoURToFDELH|ATNEWDELI.|| +Judgment [Reserved ][on: ][1-0.02.20II]Decision Delivered [On: ][l8'02'2OII] (1) trA,4O4|2OTO . . . APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF I VERSUS . . .RESPONDENT ARJAN IMPEX PVT. LTD. (2) rTA 7O8|2OLO . . . APPEI.LANT COMMISSIONER VERSUS. . .RESPONDENT SPENTEX INDUSTRIES [LTD.] trA 7e3lzoL0(3) . . . APPEI-I.ANT COMMISSIONER OF VERSUS. . .RESPONDENT PHILCO EXPORTS.(4) trA 927I2OLO. . APPELLANTCOMMISSIONER OF VERSUSPHILCO EXPORTS..RESPONDENT rrA t o80/2oLO(s) coMrvilssloluER oF INCqME APPELLANT VERSUS..RESPONDENTTAX . APPELLANT SPENTEX INDUSTRIES [LTD.] fTA L886/2OLO(6) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NITIN KUMAR, SADH ' 'RESPONDENT rrA No, ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected [matters] Page 1 of 5 it .?IL t , (7) trA L887I?OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES.(8) rrA L896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF VERSUS FUL KANT JHA(e) rTA L899/2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VERSUS PAL ENTERPR,ISES (L0) rTA L957I2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PyT. [LTD.] (111 rrA L9s8/2OLOCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME VERSUS ZENELINI LEATHER WEAR(L2) rTA L959/2OLO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ['] VERSUS RICHA APPARELS(13) Le60/20LoCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES re ruo. ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected [matters] . APPELLANT' ..RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT ..RESPONDENT . . . APPEI.LANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .R,ESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 5 . (20r trA L78l20LLCOMMISSiONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANTVERSUS. INDU GUPTA "RESPONDENT(21) lrA L8t/20LLCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANTVERSUSSANGEETAJAIN ...REsPONDENT(221 trA L82|20LL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , . APPELLANTVERSUSCLCCORPORATION ...RESPONDENT(23) lrA L84l20L1COMMTSSIOruEN OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANTVERSUSCLCCORPORATION ...RESPONDENT(241 trA L8sl20LLCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANTVERSUSVIKASKALRA ...RESPONDENT(251 tTA L87|20LLCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ' [. APPELLANT]VERSUSANUJ GOEL 'RESPONDENTJudgment [Reserved ][on: ][10.02 ][.2OII]Decision Delivered On: 18.02.20LL {zet rrA tzglzoog COMMI5SIONER OF INCOME TAX ... APPELLANT lrANo. ITA 4O4|2O1O & ors.connected mattersPage 4 of 5 .VERSUS . . .RESPONDENT PRIYANKA OVERSEAS P. [LTD.] COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: [Mr. ][Kamal Sawhney, Mr. ][Abhishek ][Maratha,] Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, [Mr. Anupam ][Tripathi,Sr']Standing Counsel with [Mr. ][Amit ][Srivastava,]Advocate. COUNSELFORTHEASSESSEES:Mr. [Ajay ][Vohra, ][Advocate ][with ][Mr. ][Kavita ][Jha,]' Mr. Somnath Shukla, Mr. [Prakash ][Kumar ][and]Mr. Manish Kumar, [Mr. ][O'P. ][Sapra, ],Mr' [Amit]Dayal, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr' [D.K. ][Goyal, ]Mr' [Vijay]Nair and Mr. Manish Chaudhary, [Dr' ][Rakesh]. with Mr. [RK. ][Aggarwal, ][Ms']Gupta, Advocate Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM :-HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIHON',BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. 1. Whether Reporters of [Local ][newspapers ][may ][be allowed] to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or [not?]3. Whether the Judgment should be reported [in ][the ][Digest?] A.K. StKRl, l. I 1. For orders, see irn rz of 2orl. FEBRUARY I.8, ?OLL,skb .K.SrKRl)JUDGE 7-^-%lq.L.MEHrn)JUDGE lrA No. ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected matters COUNSELFORTHEASSESSEES:Mr. [Ajay ][Vohra, ][Advocate ][with ][Mr. ][Kavita ][Jha,]' Mr. Somnath Shukla, Mr. [Prakash ][Kumar ][and]Mr. Manish Kumar, [Mr. ][O'P. ][Sapra, ],Mr' [Amit]Dayal, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr' [D.K. ][Goyal, ]Mr' [Vijay]Nair and Mr. Manish Chaudhary, [Dr' ][Rakesh]. with Mr. [RK. ][Aggarwal, ][Ms']Gupta, Advocate Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM :-HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRIHON',BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. 1. Whether Reporters of [Local ][newspapers ][may ][be allowed] to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or [not?]3. Whether the Judgment should be reported [in ][the ][Digest?] A.K. StKRl, l. I 1. For orders, see irn rz of 2orl. FEBRUARY I.8, ?OLL,skb .K.SrKRl)JUDGE 7-^-%lq.L.MEHrn)JUDGE lrA No. ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected matters _lIII.lIII'ql* lN Tl-tE !-xlcl-{ co[,rRT oF DEqh!I AT NEW DELI-IIl2-IJudgmInt Reserved on: 10.02.20l.IDecisiDelivered On: 18.02.2011rrA. r.2/2O11(1) COMMISSIONER OF IhXCOME [-d'AX]. . . APPEI-LAI\NTVERSUSPAR,AMOI.IhJT IMPEX PVT. [.TD.. . RESPONDEIUT(2) trA. 4o4l2O1"OCOMMISSIOIUER, OF INCOME TAX. . . APPEI.LAI\ITVERSUS- AR.IAN IMPEX PVT. I-T',D.. . .RESPONIDENIT(3) ITA 708120L0coMMtssno${ER oF lhlcoME [-d'AX]. . APPEL[.A[\ITVERSUSSPENTEX XNDI,.ISTR.IES LTD., , .RESPONIDEhIT(4) rrA 793120L0. COMMISSXONER. OF IIUCOME TAX. . . APPEI.LAhITVERSUSPFIII.CO EXPORTS.. . .RESPONDENT', trA s27 naLo(s) ^c-. COMMISSIONER OF IIUCOME TAX. . APPELLANITIvVERSUSPl{lLco EXPOR,TS. .R,EsPOT\XDENT(6) rTA t 080/20L0COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME . . APPE!.I-ANTVERSUSSPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD.. .REsPOil[DENT(7) ITA ].886/20L0COMMISSIONIER OF INCOME . APPELLANT' trANo. ITA 12l2jll & ors.connected mattersPage 1 of 6 t.--_ ) VERSUS PR,IVARIKA OVER,SEAS [P. ][I.TD.] COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE:Mr. Kamalhney, Mr. AbhishekMaratha,Ms. Suruchigarwal, Mr. AnuPamTripathi,Sr.Standing Cunsel with Mr. AmitSrivastava,Advocate. [[Ajay ][Vo]][[Vo]]a, Advocate with Mr, [Kavita ]Jha,Mr. SomnShukla, Mr. Prakash Kumar [and']Mr. ManishKumar, Mr. O.P. SaPra, ,Mr. [Amit]Dayal, Mr. Pkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijaYNair and MrManish Chaudhary, Dr. [Rakesh]Gupta, Advowith Mr. RK. Aggarwal, [Ms.]Mr. SomnShukla, Mr. Prakash Kumar [and']Mr. ManishKumar, Mr. O.P. SaPra, ,Mr. [Amit]Dayal, Mr. Pkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijaYNair and MrManish Chaudhary, Dr. [Rakesh]Gupta, Advowith Mr. RK. Aggarwal, [Ms.]Poonam Ahuj, [Advocates.] COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES:Mr. [[Ajay ][Vo]][[Vo]] CORAM :-htoN'tsLE MR. JUSTICE A,K. HON',BLE MR. .!t STICE M.l-. 1.Whether Reporters of Local [n]papers may be allowedto see the Judgment?2.To be referred to the Reporternot?3.Whether the Judgment shouldreported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, N. 1. All these appeals involved commoquestion of law. For the sakeof convenience, we can reproduce the [q]tions of law framed in one ofthese appeals:- "(a) Whether on a correcinterpretation of therelevant statutory [provisions]Tribunal was [justified ][n]law in directing the Asseing Officer to allowdeduction under section 80HC of the Act in respectof "profit" on sale of DEPB?relevant statutory [provisions]Tribunal was [justified ][n]law in directing the Asseing Officer to allowdeduction under section 80HC of the Act in respectof "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts ofpresent case,. Tri bunalwas [justified ]in law in imiedly holding that theassessee would be entitledo deduction as [per ]thefirst proviso below sub-Secti3 of Section 80HHC inrespect of DEPB Credit utiliby the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the TribunI in all these cases are briefbecause of the reasori that the [Tribuna]has simply followed [(wh.ich ]itwas supposed to) the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in [the]case of Tapman Export Vs. tfo flTA [N]. 57691Vum.i2006 decided ondated 11'h August, 2009.1. [By ][that ][judg]ent, the Special Bench of the ffANo. ITA L2|7OLL & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 6 ila (b)Whether on the facts ofpresent case,. Tri bunalwas [justified ]in law in imiedly holding that theassessee would be entitledo deduction as [per ]thefirst proviso below sub-Secti3 of Section 80HHC inrespect of DEPB Credit utiliby the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the TribunI in all these cases are briefbecause of the reasori that the [Tribuna]has simply followed [(wh.ich ]itwas supposed to) the decision of the Special Bench, Mumbai in [the]case of Tapman Export Vs. tfo flTA [N]. 57691Vum.i2006 decided ondated 11'h August, 2009.1. [By ][that ][judg]ent, the Special Bench of the ffANo. ITA L2|7OLL & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 6 ila Tribunalhas held that the face value of DPB is chargeable to tax uls [28](iiib) atthe time of accrual of income, tht is, when the application forDEPB isfiled with the competent autpursuant to exports andprofit insale of DEPF representing the eess of sale proceeds of DEPBover itsface value ii; liable to be considerd u/s 28(iiid) at the time of itssale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal [i]Bombay against the aforesaid decision ofThe Bombay High Coutt has reversed ththe [judgment ]of the Bombay High Courtaf Xncome Tax Vs. Kalpatarw Colours the High Court Adjudicate ate Special Bench of the ITAT.decision of the Tribunal andreported as CormrnissionerChemicals, 328 ITR 457. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply follSpecial Bench decision inTopman Exports [(supra) ]which standsover ruled, we set aside theorder passed by the Tribunal in all theseses and remit the cases bacl<to the Tribunal to decide these appealon merits after taking intoaccount factual position in all these cases bove terms. These appeals stand disposed of on q, JUDGE -6A-Q--P-,(M.L.MEFTTA)JUDGE FEBRI.IARY n 8, 20LX.,skbrA No. ITA Lzl2OlI & ors.connected matters Page 6 of 6