The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Trb Export (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.546 of 2010 & other connected cases being I.T.A. Nos.544, 547, 550, 558, 564, 573, 574, 576, 580, 582, 600,616, 617 and 622 of 2010Date of decision: 8.12.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s TRB Export (P) Ltd. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Denesh Goyal, Standing Counsel &Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counselfor the appellant/revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.544, 546, 547,550, 558, 564, 573, 574, 576, 580, 582, 600, 616, 617 and 622 of2010 as common questions of law are involved in all the appeals.2. I.T.A. No.546 of 2010 has been preferred by therevenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh dated 31.8.2009 in I.T.A. No.402/CHANDI/2008 proposing to raise following substantial questionsof law:- (i)“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in not holding that total saleconsideration inclusive of face value of DEPB andpremium amount received thereof represents profitchargeable under sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?ITAT was right in law in not holding that total saleconsideration inclusive of face value of DEPB andpremium amount received thereof represents profitchargeable under sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transferof DEPB entitlement represents the entire amountinclusive of premium of sale of such DEPB?ITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transferof DEPB entitlement represents the entire amountinclusive of premium of sale of such DEPB? (iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in holding that the word “profit”referred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 means the difference between the sale priceof DEPB and the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact thatthe entire amount represents the profit in the hands ofassessee?ITAT was right in law in holding that the word “profit”referred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 means the difference between the sale priceof DEPB and the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact thatthe entire amount represents the profit in the hands ofassessee? (iv)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPBfrom sale price of DEPB for calculating profit underSections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961as if the face value is the cost incurred by the assessee toacquire the DEPB?ITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPBfrom sale price of DEPB for calculating profit underSections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961as if the face value is the cost incurred by the assessee toacquire the DEPB? (v)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in holding that the word profitreferred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolatedto the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?ITAT was right in law in holding that the word profitreferred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolatedto the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? (v)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT was right in law in holding that the word profitreferred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolatedto the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?ITAT was right in law in holding that the word profitreferred to in Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolatedto the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should bededucted from the sale proceed for the purpose ofdetermination of deduction under Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961? (vi)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation LawsITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed inaccordance with amendment made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from1.4.1998?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue states that thematter is covered by order of this Court dated 13.9.2010 in ITA No.424 of 2010 (CIT v. M/s The Designer). 4. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in same terms. 5.A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 08, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE