Itxa/2410/2011 Of M/S. Texport (India) v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -21 (3)
High Court
04 Mar 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2410/2011 Of M/S. Texport (India) v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -21 (3)
Date of order
04 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/2410/2011 Of M/S. Texport (India) v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -21 (3), the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2410 OF 2011
M/s. Texport (India), Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle21(3), Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr. R.V. Shetty i/b. Ashok D. Shetty for the appellant.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In this appeal by the appellant-assessee for the assessment year 2001-02, the following questions has been raised for our consideration :-
(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the entire sale proceeds received on transfer of a DEPB licence including the fact value has to be considered as profit under Section 28(iiid) law, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the entire sale proceeds received on transfer of a DEPB licence including the fact value has to be considered as profit under Section 28(iiid)
and accordingly reduced while calculating deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act ?
(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the statutory provision contained in section 28(iiid) which provided for only the 'profit' on transfer of DEPB licence being subjected to tax in the year of transfer and not the sale proceeds itself ?
2.Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising herein is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Topman Exports V/s. CIT reported in 2012 (277) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.). In view of the above, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 16[th ]September, 2011 is set aside and the matter is restored to the assessing officer to be decided afresh in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Topman Exports (supra).
3.The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.