Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kapoor Industries

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (8) rrA L896/20r.0COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUSFUL KANT JHA (e) rrA 1899/2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPR,ISES (L0) rrA r.9s7l20LoCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (11) rTA L958/2010COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELINI,LEATHER WEAR (L2) rTA L9s9/2Or.O COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICHA APPARELS 1rs) [L96O|2OLO]COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR. INDUSTR,IES rA No. ITA 40412010 & ors.connected matters . . APPELI.ANT ' [.RESPONDENT]. ' APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT. . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPE!-LANT . .R,ESPONDENT . . . APPEI.LANT . .R,ESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT. . . APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT Page 2 of 5 rA No. ITA 4O4|2OLO & ors.connected matters Page 3 of 5 . (rot ,to ,.rtltott . . APPELLANT COMMISSIONER, OF INCOME TAX VERSUSINDU GUPTA . [(21) ][lrA ][18r./20L1] Judgment [Reserved ][on: ][10.02.20IL]Decision Delivered On: 18.02.207I (26r trL 72312009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . APPELLANT lrA No. ITA 404120L0 & ors.connected matters ] o {o .VERSUS . . .RESPONDENT PRIYI\NKA 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]. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, [Ms']Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM :- HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SlKRl HON',BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be [allowed]' to see the Judgment? Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the [Digest?] A.K. StKRt, l. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. -w.t,uEHrn) "r-t--,-e%l-[\]JUDGEFEBRUAR.YL8,?OLL,skb rA No. ITA 4O4|2OLO & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 5 , , ( it VERSUS . . .REsPonnDENT I PR,IYANKA OVERSEAS P. LTD" Mr. Kamal Swhney, Mr. AbhishekMaratha,Ms. Suruchiarwal, Mr. AnupamTripathi,Sr.Standingnsel with Mr. AmitSrivastava,Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Ajay VoVoa, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha,Mr. SomnatShukla, Mr. Prakash Kumar andMr. ManishKumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. AmitDayal, Mr. Pkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijayNair and MrManish Chaudhary, Dr. RakeshGupta,te with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms.Mr. SomnatShukla, Mr. Prakash Kumar andMr. ManishKumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. AmitDayal, Mr. Pkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijayNair and MrManish Chaudhary, Dr. RakeshGupta,te with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuj, Advocates. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES:Mr. Ajay VoVo CORAM :-HON'BLE MR. JIISTICE A.K. SIK' HON',Bt-E MR. [[jUSTICE ]]M.t-. ME1.Whether Reporters of Local Local neto see the Judgment?see the Judgment?the Judgment?Judgment? HON',Bt-E MR. [[jUSTICE ]]M.t-. MEA1.Whether Reporters of Local Local nepapers may be allowedto see the Judgment?see the Judgment?the Judgment?Judgment?2.To be referred to the Reporternot?3.'Whether the Judgment shouldreported in the Digest? 1. All these appeals involved commoquestion of law. For the sal<eof convenience, we can reproduce the qtions of law framed in one ofthese appeals:- "(a) Whether on a correcinterpretation of therelevant statutory provisionsTribunal was [justified ]nlaw in directing the Asssing Officer to allowdeduction under.section BOHC of the Act in respectof "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of tpresent case, Tribunalwas [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 utilizby the assessee?" 1. All these appeals involved commoquestion of law. For the sal<eof convenience, we can reproduce the qtions of law framed in one ofthese appeals:- "(a) Whether on a correcinterpretation of therelevant statutory provisionsTribunal was [justified ]nlaw in directing the Asssing Officer to allowdeduction under.section BOHC of the Act in respectof "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of tpresent case, Tribunalwas [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 utilizby the assessee?" 2, The orders passed by the TribunI in all these cases are briefbecause of the reason that the Tribunahas simply followed [(which ]itwas supposed to) the decision of theITASpecial Bench, Mumbai in thecase of Taprnan Export Vs. tfo |TA N. 57691Vum.i2006 decided ondated 11'n August, 2009.1. By that [judg]ent, the Special Bench of the lrA No. ITA L2lzOlI & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 6 II Tribunalhas held that the face value ot Of [pg ]is chargeable to tax uls 28I(iiib) atthe time of accrual of income, thpt is, when the application forIDEPB isfiled with the competent authQrity I[pu]rsuant to exports andIprofit insale of DEPB representing the expess ofsale proceeds of DEPBIover itsface value is liable to be considered u/s 28(iiid) at the time of itssale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal ithe High Court Adjudicate atBombay against the aforesaid decision ofe Special Bench of the ITAT.The Bombay High Courl has reversed thdecision of the Tribunal andthe [judgment ]of the Bombay High Courts reported as Commissionerof Incorne Tax Vs. Kalpataru Coloursd Chemicals, 328 ITR 457.4. Since the Tribunal had simply folled Special Bench decision inTopman Exparts [(supra) ]which stands over ruled, we set aside theorder passed by the Tribunal in all theseses and remit the cases backto the Tribunal to decide these appealon merits after talcing intoaccount factual oor,a,on in all these cases 5,These appeals stand disposed of on bove terms. JUDGE FEBRUARY X.8, ?ALL,skbrA No. ITA Lzl2OLl & ors.connected matters (M.L.MEr-rT',A)JUDGE Page 6 of 6