Ita 404/2010 Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Arjan Impex Pvt. L To

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (1) ITA 404/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..• APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX PVT. L TO. • (2) ITA 708/2010 ... APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES L TO. .•. RESPONDENT (3) ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS. ... RESPONDENT (4) ITA 927/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPElLANT VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS •. RESPONDENT (5) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. . .RESPONDENT (6) ITA 1886/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . APPELLANT (6) ITA 1886/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH .. RESPONDENT Page 1 of 5 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (8) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FUL KANT JHA (9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (10) ITA 1957/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. L TO. (11) ITA 1958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELINI LEATHER WEAR (12) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICHA APPARELS (13) 1960/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters .. APPELlANT .. RESPONDENT .. APPELLANT ... RESPONIDENT .•. APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT .. APPELLANT .. RESPONIDENT ... APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT ... APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT •.• APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT {14) ITA 1980/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS .. APPELLANT .• RESPONDENT .. APPELLANT AHUJA. RADIOS {15) ITA 2074/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS ... RESPONDENT {16} ITA 14/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN ... RESPONDENT (17) ITA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS LEATHER TECH ... RESPONDENT (18} ITA 67/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. . .. RESPONDENT (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI JAGGI ... RESPONDENT {16} ITA 14/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS • SANGEETA JAIN (17) ITA 15/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGGI JAGGI (20) ITA 178/2011 .. APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS INDU GUPTA •.. RESPONDENT (21) ITA 181/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS SANGEETA JAIN B •• RESPONDENT (22) ITA 182/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX •. APPELLANT VERSUS CLC CORPORATION ... RESPONDENT (23) ITA 184/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPEllANT VERSUS CLC CORPORATION ..• RESPONDENT (24) ITA 185/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT VERSUS VIKAS KALRA •.. RESPONDENT {25) ITA 187/2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELlANT VERSUS ANUJ GOEL .. RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (26) ITA 723/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .. APPELLANT ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters ·VERSUS PRIYANKA OVERSEAS P. L TO. .. . RESPONDIENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: 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. O.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. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 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. SIKRI, J, 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb L. MEHTA) jUDGE -I I I I I AT NEW DIEH..HR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: 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. O.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. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 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. SIKRI, J, 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb L. MEHTA) jUDGE -I I I I I AT NEW DIEH..HR * IN THIE HIGH COURT OF I ' I ' I -i 1---- . -------·- -··-·-----. ----1-' .. -------- • VERSU,S ... RESPONDENT PRUYANKA OVERSEAS IP. lTD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal S whney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Suruchi ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. Standing C unsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: 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. O.K. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advo ate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. Poonam Ahuj , Advocates. - CORAM:- IHON'BLIE MR. JUSTICE A.K. 8 HON'BLIE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 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 snould b reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRir J. 1. All these appeals involved comma question of law. For the sake of convenience, we can reproduce the q estions of law framed in one of these appeals:- "(a) Whether on a interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions,! Tribunal was justified n law in directing the Assersing Officer to allow deduction under section 80H C of the Act in respect of "profit" on sale of DEPB? (b)Whether on the facts of thle present case, Tribunal was justified in law in im liedly holding that the assessee would be entitled o deduction as per the first proviso below sub-Section 3 of Section 80HHC in respect of DEPB Credit utilize by the assessee?" 2. The orders passed by the Tribun I in all these cases are brief because of the reason that the Tribuna has simply followed (which it was supposed to) the decision of the ITA Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Topman Export Vs. ITO [ITA N . 5769/Mum./2006 decided on dated 11th August, 2009.]. By that judg ent, the Special Bench of the ITA No. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 6 - -·-·· ......... ·---------···----·-·-·--·------·--·-·-· . ..... -- - Tribunal has held that the face value of D PB is chargeable to tax u/s 2 (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, th t is, when the application for DEPB is filed with the competent auth rity pursuant to exports and profit in sale of DEPB representing the ex ess of sale proceeds of DEPB over its face value is liable to be consider d u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal i the High Court Adjudicate. at Bombay against the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the IT AT. The Bombay High Court has reversed th decision of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Bombay High Court is reported as Commffssioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and C/hiemffcalsp 328 ITR 451. 4. Since the Tribunal had simply followed Special decision in Topman Exports (supra) which stands over ruled, we set aside the ·, order passed by the Tribunal in all these cases and remit the cases back :to the Tribunal to decide these appeal on merits after taking into account factual position in all these cases. • 5 . These appeals stand disposed of on bove terms. 1'&13" jUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb {M.LMEHTA) JUDGIE ITA No. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters Page 6 of 6