Kumar Sarh(8) Ita 18^7/2010Commdssionerof Income Tax v. Kapoordndustries„•(9)-Ita'1896/2010Commdssionerof Dncome

Digitally Signed By:AMULYACertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing. •VERSUS PRSYANKA OVERSEAS P. LTD. . . .IRESPOMDENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. AbhishekMaratha,Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr.StandingCounselwith Mr. Amit Srivastava,Advocate. COUNSELFOR THE ASSESSEES:Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha,•Mr. SomnathShukia,Mr. PrakashKunnar andMr. ManishKumar,Mr. O.P. Sapra,,Mr. AmitDayal, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. VijayNair andMr. ManishChaudhary,Dr. RakeshGupta, Advocatewith Mr. RK. Aggarwal,Ms.Poonam Ahuja,Advocates. CORAM HON'BLEMR. JUSTBCE A.K. SIKR0HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA1.Whether Reporters of Local newspapersto see the judgment?2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?3.Whether the Judgment should be reported may be allowed in the Digest? A.K. SiKm,I 1.For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. FEBRUARY 18, 2011,skb .K.SIECIRI)JUDGEfM.L.MEHTA)^JUDGE- •VERSUS KUMAR SARH(8) ITA 18^7/2010commdssionerof income tax VERSUS KAPOORDNDUSTRIES„•(9)-ITA'1896/2010COMMDSSiONEROF DNCOME VERSUS KANT JHA/>COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAXVERSUS ENTERPRISES1957/2010,COMMISSIONEROF INCOMEVERSUS PRAVEENINDUSTRIESCOMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAXVERSUS ZENELINILEATHER WEAR(13) ITA 1959/2010CoWmISSIONEROF INCOME VERSUS RICHA APPARELS (14) 1960/2010 ITANo. ITA 12/2011& ors.connectedmatters .RESPONDENT. , APPELLAINT„IRESPONDEN', „ -APPELLANT.RESPONDEE, , APPELLANT.RESPONDENT. . apEpellant.RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 6 .[RESPONDEi\flT COUNSELFOR THE REVENUE:Fir. •Kamalwhney,Mr. AbhishekMaratha,Ms. SuruchiQ^ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr.StandingCcunselwithMr.AmitSrivastava,Advocate.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Voha, AdvocatewithMr. Kavita Jha,Mr.SomnattiShukia,Mr.PrakashKumarandMr. ManisliKumar,Mr. O.P. Sapra,,Mr. Amit,Dayal,Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal,Mr. VijayNairandMrMa'nishChaudhary,Dr.RakeshGupta,Advo;atewithMr.RK. Aggarwal,Ms.Poonann Ahuja. Advocates. 'ELE'BLE MR„ JUSTICE M±. MEH1.Whether Reportersof Locai newspapers may be allowedto see the judgment?2.. To be referred to-the Reporter or not?3.,Whether the Judgment should b2 reportedin the Digest? 1.All these appealsinvolvedcommonquestionof law.For the sakeof convenience,we can reproduce the qiestionsof law framedin one ofthese appeals:- "(a)- 'Whetheronacorrecinterpretationof therelevant statutoryprovisions,Tribunalwas justifiednlawindirectingtheAssessingOfficertoallowdeductionunder section80Hof the Act in respectof "profit"on sale of DEPB? (b)Whetheron the facts of the present case, Tribunalwasjustifiediplawinimpliedlyholdingthattheassesseewouldbe entitled:o deductionas per thefirst proviso below sub-Section 3 of Section80HHC inrespect of DEPB Credit utilizejdby the assessee?" 2.The orders passed by the Tribun^inall thesecasesarebriefbecauseof the reasonthat the Tribunahas simply followed(whichitwas supposedto) the decisionof the ITASpecialBench,Mumbaiin thecase of Topman Export Vs. STO [ITA ND. 5769/Mum./2006decidedondatedAugust,2009.]. .By that judgriient; the SpecialBench of the ITA No. ITA 12/2011& ors.connectedmattersPage 5 of 6. Tribunalhas held that the face value ofPB is chargeable'.totax u/s 28(iiib) at the time of accrualof income, th^t is, when the applicationforDEPB is filedwith- the conipetentauthoritypursuantto .exportsandprofit in sale of DEPB representingthe exess of sale proceedsof DEPBover its face value is liable to be consider®d u/s 28(iiid)at the time of itssale. 3.The Revenuehad filed the appealir1 the High Court AdjudicateatBombay against the aforesaiddecisionofthe SpecialBench of the ITAT.The Bombay High Court has reversed th^decisionof the Tribunalandthe judgment of the Bombay High Courtis' reportedas Commiissiionerof Smcome Tax Vs. KaHpataru Colours a•, 328 1TR451. ITA No. ITA 12/2011& ors.connectedmattersPage 5 of 6. Tribunalhas held that the face value ofPB is chargeable'.totax u/s 28(iiib) at the time of accrualof income, th^t is, when the applicationforDEPB is filedwith- the conipetentauthoritypursuantto .exportsandprofit in sale of DEPB representingthe exess of sale proceedsof DEPBover its face value is liable to be consider®d u/s 28(iiid)at the time of itssale. 3.The Revenuehad filed the appealir1 the High Court AdjudicateatBombay against the aforesaiddecisionofthe SpecialBench of the ITAT.The Bombay High Court has reversed th^decisionof the Tribunalandthe judgment of the Bombay High Courtis' reportedas Commiissiionerof Smcome Tax Vs. KaHpataru Colours a•, 328 1TR451. 4.Since the Tribunalhad-simplyfollowved SpecialBench decisioninTopmanExports(supra)which standsoverruled,we set asidethe•order passed by the Tribunalin all these cases and remit the cases backto the' Tribunal to decidetheseappealson meritsafter taking /intoaccount factualpositionin all these cases.5. • These appeals stand disposed of onabove terms.C?L.r, 2• skbiTA.No. ITA 12/20115( ors.connectedmattersPage 6 of 6