The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. Siddharth Colourchem Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.396 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Siddharth Colourchem Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &A.R. Joshi, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 15[th] December 2011 1.None for the respondent, though served. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads thus : (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement does not represent profit chargeable under Section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Tribunal was right in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement does not represent profit chargeable under Section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has further justified in directing to reduce 90% of gross interest from the profit of the business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?Tribunal has further justified in directing to reduce 90% of gross interest from the profit of the business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2.Both the above questions are covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kalpataru Colors and Chemicals reported in (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Asian Star Company Limited reported in (2010) 326 ITR 56 (Bom). 3.In this view of the matter, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is impugned in this appeal is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the judgments of this case cited above. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (A.R. Joshi, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)