The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Ludhiana v. M/S T.r.b. Export Pvt. Ltd

ITA No. 548 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 548 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ....Appellant. Versus M/s T.R.B. Export Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 548 and 623 of 2010.2.ITA No. 548 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated19.11.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (B) in ITA No. 857/CHD/2009, for the assessment year 2002-03,proposing following substantial questions of law:- “IWhether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat the total sale consideration inclusive offace value of DEPB and premium amountreceived thereof represents profit chargeableunder sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the II. III. IV. V. Income Tax Act, 1961? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in not holdingthat profit on transfer of DEPB entitlementrepresents the entire amount inclusive ofpremium of sale of such DEPB? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatthe word “profit” referred to in section 28(iiid)and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 meansthe difference between the sale price of DEPBand the face value of DEPB ignoring the factthat the entire amount represents the profit inthe hands of assessee? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in deducting theface value of DEPB from sale price of DEPBfor calculating profit under section 28(iiid) and28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the facevalue is the cost incurred by the assessee toacquire the DEPB? Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in law in holding thatthe word profit referred to in sections 28(iiid)and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961requires any artificial cost to be interpolated to the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRCshould be deducted from the sale proceed forthe purpose of determination of deductionunder section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961? VI. Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT has failed to appreciate thatdeduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961 was rightly computed in accordance withamendment made by the Taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospectiveeffect from 01.04.1998?” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue states the matter iscovered by order of this Court dated 13.9.2010 in ITA No. 424 of 2010(Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s The Designer). 4.Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in same terms.6.A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connectedcase.6.A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connectedcase. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 16, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE