Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Samtex Fashion Limited

$~14. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 1057/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Santosh Krishnan, Advocate. ..... Appellant Versus SAMTEX FASHION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Dileep Shivpuri, Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. Sr.Standing CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R23.05.2017 % 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the order dated 15[th] May, 2007 in ITA No.1626/Del/2006 for Assessment Year 2001-02. By the order dated 5[th]October, 2009 while admitting the appeal, the following questions were framed by this Court for consideration: “1. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing Assessee's claim u/s10A of the Act out of income earned on sale of export/import quota holding that the assessee was alternatively entitled to deduction u/s80HHC of the Act? 2. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing Assessee's claim u/s10A of the Act on interest on margin money by holding that the assessee was alternatively entitled to deduction u/s80HHC of the Act?” 2. As far as Question No.1 is concerned, it stands covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by a decision of this Court in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135. Accordingly, the question is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 3. As far as Question No.2 is concerned, again it is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Mereena Creations (2010) 330 ITR 199 which in turn follows the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (2007) 289 ITR 475. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e. is, in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 4. The impugned order of the ITAT on both issues is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 23, 2017 ‘anb’ VINOD GOEL, J ITA 1057/2008