Case LawHigh Court › Opalium International Exports v. Dy. Com...

Opalium International Exports v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 20 Nov 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Opalium International Exports v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
20 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Opalium International Exports v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Issue: DATE : 20[th] November, 2012 PC: The questions of law raised by the appellant-assessee in this appeal read thus: 1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in directing the respondent No.1 to decide the issue of deduction under Sec.80 HHC of the Act in accordance with...

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

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.569 OF 2011 Opalium International Exports. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax. ...Appellant. ...Respondent. Mr. S.J. Mehta with Ms. Aarti Vissanji for the Appellant.Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 20[th] November, 2012 PC: The questions of law raised by the appellant-assessee in this appeal read thus: 1)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in directing the respondent No.1 to decide the issue of deduction under Sec.80 HHC of the Act in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals? 2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement represent profit chargeable under Section 28(iiid) of the Act? 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that face value of DEPB is not chargeable under Sec. 28(iiib) but is chargeable under Sec.28(iiid) of the Act? 2)Since the Income Tax Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing officer, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. However, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the ITAT shall take into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC) . 3)The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKELCHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan