The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnal v. M/S Spartan Trends Inc

Income-tax Appeal No.522 of 2010-1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.522of 2010 Date of decision: 31.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal ...Appellant Versus M/s Spartan Trends Inc. ...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 (Oral). 1.This order will dispose of ITAs No.522 of 2010 and 678 of2010 as it is stated that questions involved in both the appeals aresame. 2. ITA No.522 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orderdated 4.12.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench'I', New Delhi in I.T.A. No.1710/Del/2007 for the assessment year2004-05 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80 HHC on the face value of DEPB inthe case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores inview of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation **** law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effectfrom 01.4.1998? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowingdeduction u/s 80 HHC in respect of entire DEPBamount by incorporating the same in the computationof business profit u/s 28 (iib)? 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter iscovered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated16.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings andI.T.A. No.299 of 2010 CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, wherein after noticing thejudgment of the 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. 4. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier ordersof this Court, we dispose of these appeals in same terms. For thispurpose, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to therespondent, but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Courtif they have any grievance against this order. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 31,2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge