M/S Ambika Overseas v. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.326 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.8.2010 C.I.T. M/s Ambika Overseas. Vs. -----Appellant. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “theAct”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar, proposing to raise following substantial questions oflaw:- “I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theITAT was right in law in not holding that the total saleconsideration inclusive of face value of DEPB and premiumamount received thereof represents profit chargeableunder sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act,1961?ITAT was right in law in not holding that the total saleconsideration inclusive of face value of DEPB and premiumamount received thereof represents profit chargeableunder sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act,1961? II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transfer ofITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement represents the entire amount inclusive ofpremium of sale of such DEPB? III. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theITAT was right in law in holding that the word “profit”referred to in section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act,1961 means the difference between the sale price of DEPBand the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact that the entireamount represents the profit in the hands of assessee?ITAT was right in law in holding that the word “profit”referred to in section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act,1961 means the difference between the sale price of DEPBand the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact that the entireamount represents the profit in the hands of assessee? IV. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPBfrom sale price of DEPB for calculating profit under section28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the facevalue is the cost incurred by the assessee to acquire theDEPB?ITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPBfrom sale price of DEPB for calculating profit under section28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the facevalue is the cost incurred by the assessee to acquire theDEPB? V. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theITAT was right in law in holding that the word profit referredto in sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act,1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolated to theextent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?ITAT was right in law in holding that the word profit referredto in sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act,1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolated to theextent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? VI. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998?”ITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998?” VI. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998?”ITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998?” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter iscovered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated16.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgingsand I.T.A. No.299 of 2010CITv. F.C. Sondhi, wherein after noticingthe judgment of the Bombay High Court in CITv. KalpataruColours & Chemicals2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter wasremanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance withlaw. 3. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlierorders of this Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms.For this purpose, we have not considered it necessary to issuenotice to the respondent, but we give liberty to the respondent tomove this Court if they have any grievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 30, 2010MITTAL )ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR JUDGE