M/S. Lotus Gums & Chemicals (P) Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 3/2010 M/s. Lotus Gums & Chemicals (P) Ltd. versus The Income Tax Officer Date of Order : 21[st] May, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI Mr. Anjay Kothari, for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Thisappeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law by this Court on 11[th] January, 2010:- “Whether for the purpose of sub-section iii(d) of Section 28 and Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, it is the profit on transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme that is required to be taken into consideration and not the quantum of sale proceeds?” 3.Learned counsel for both the parties initially argued the case, but during the course of arguments, they conceded that point involved in the present case has already been considered and answered by the Hon'ble Apex -Court in Topman Exports versus Commissioner of Income Taxreported in [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC), therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed, for the reasons given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra). 4.The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “The aforesaid discussion would show that where an assessee has an export turnover exceeding Rs. 10 crores and has made profits on transfer of DEPB under clause 5.In view of statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on export proceeds, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Topman Exports's case (supra). 6.The question framed in the case is answered in favour of the assessee. 7.Parties are directed to bear their own costs. (Mahendra Maheshwari),J. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Mak/-6 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Anil MakawanaJr. P.A.