M/S Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA Nos. 367 to 369 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.01.2013 (i)ITA No. 367 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent (ii)ITA No. 368 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent (iii)ITA No. 369 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocatefor the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned Income TaxAppeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) arising out of the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and2001-2002. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for theappellant has addressed the arguments on question No.(v), which reads asunder:- “(v)Whether the Tribunal on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case was legally correct in holding thatthe assessee was like DEPB amount, in respect of SpecialImport Licence amount, not entitled to deduction underSection 80 HHC of the Act even when in respect of SpecialImport Licence amount, no amendment had been brought onthe statute book by the legislatures with effect from29.12.2005 as in the case of DEPB?” The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that theTribunal has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court reported asCommissioner of Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals(2010) 328 ITR 451, but the said judgment has been set aside by theHon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Topman Exports v.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (2012) 3 SCC, 593.Therefore, question No.(v) should be decided in favour of the Assesseeand against the Revenue and the matter be remitted back to the AssessingOfficer for re-computation of the deduction admissible to the assesseeunder Section 80HHC of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute theargument raised, as the issue is said to be covered by the judgment ofHon'ble the Supreme Court in Topman Exports' case (supra). Consequently, the above question of law is answered in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue. The matter is remitted back tothe Assessing Officer for re-computation of the deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act. Appeals stand disposed of. January 16, 2013G.Arora/Vimal (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE