The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnal v. M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd

ITA No. 811 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal Versus M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. ITA No. 811 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “E”, New Delhi in ITA No.1066/DEL/2009 dated 11.2.2010, for the assessment year 2003-04,claiming following substantial questions of law:- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was justified in allowing deductionu/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB in the casewhere turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view ofproviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998?case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in allowing deductionu/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB in the casewhere turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view ofproviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation Law(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from01.04.1998? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80HHC in respect of entire DEPBcase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80HHC in respect of entire DEPB amount by incorporating the same in the computationof business profit u/s 28(iiib)? iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Ld. ITAT was justified in placing relianceupon the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Special Bench, Mumbi in the case of M/s TopmanExports Vs. ITO (209)-TOIL-531-ITAT dated11.08.2009 despite the fact that the decision of theMumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of TompanExport, supra has been reversed by the decision ofthe Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CITVs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemical, 2010-TIOL-482-HC-Mum?” 2.Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter iscovered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated16.8.2010 in ITA No. 301 of 2010 (CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings) andITA No. 299 of 2010 (CIT v. F.C. Sondhi) wherein after noticing thejudgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours &Chemicals, 2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter was remanded to theTribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3.Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders ofthis Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose,we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent,but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have anygrievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 14, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE