The Commissioner Of Incometax, Tiruchirapalli-1 v. M/S.parameswari Textiles, Karur1-B, Kulathupulayar Road, Vengamedu,Karur-639 006

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.115 to 118 of 2010 The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Tiruchirapalli-1...Appellant/Respondent in all Appeals Vs M/s.Parameswari Textiles, Karur1-B, Kulathupulayar Road, Vengamedu,Karur-639 006. ...Respondent/Appellant in all appeals Prayer:APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 21.4.2009 in ITA Nos.1585 to1588/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalMadras 'C' Bench respectively for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Tiruchirapalli, dated30.6.08, and 1.7.08 made in I.T.A.424/06-07, ITA No.191/07-08,I.T.A.No.192/07-08 and ITA No.466/06-07 against the order of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Tiruchy, dated26/12/2006, 11.12.2007 and 5.12.2016, made in AAAFP6753H/Cir-II/Try and AAAFP6753A. For Appellant : Mrs.R.HemalathaFor Respondent : Mr.Quadir Hoseyn COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Revenue has preferred these appeals challenging theorders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inITA.Nos.1585 to 1588/ Mds/ 2008 respectively for the assessmentyears 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2004-05. 3. These appeals have been admitted on 29.3.2010 on thefollowing substantial questions of law :“i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawback andsimilar incentives disclaimed in its favourby the exporter ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that theassessee, a supporting manufacturer, wasentitled to deduction under Section 80HHC inrespect of the DEPB and duty drawbackdisclaimed in its favour by the exporterwithout taking note of the Third Proviso toSub-Section (3) of Section 80HHC and thedifference between the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (3A) of Section 80HHC?iii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal had any material to come to theconclusion that the DEPB and duty drawbacketc. benefits received by the assessee byvirtue of disclaimer issued by the exporterin its favour should be regarded as part ofsale consideration when such benefits couldnot be treated as export benefits underSection 28(iiia) etc. ? Andiv. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Baby MarineExports (290 ITR 323) was applicable to theassessee's case without noticing that thesaid case related to export premium whereasin the assessee's case, the issue related toDEPB/duty drawback, etc. disclaimed in itsfavour by the exporter?” 4. It may not be necessary for us to answer the abovesubstantial questions of law, as the monetary limits in these https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeals are lesser than the amount fixed by the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. ThisCourt had an occasion to consider the effect of those circularsin TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, the relevant portions ofwhich are as follows : 4. It may not be necessary for us to answer the abovesubstantial questions of law, as the monetary limits in these https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appeals are lesser than the amount fixed by the circularinstructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. ThisCourt had an occasion to consider the effect of those circularsin TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, the relevant portions ofwhich are as follows : “4. Further, it is relevant to notethat by Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018,monetary limit has further been increasedand appeals be maintainable before the HighCourts. It has been increased toRs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from anyangle, this appeal could not have beenfiled. 5. Thus, by applying the above Circularissued by the CBDT, this appeal ought not tohave been filed by the Revenue and hence,for that reason, this tax case appeal isdismissed and the substantial questions oflaw, framed for consideration, are leftopen.” 5. In the light of the above, the above appeals aredismissed. No costs. The substantial questions of law are leftopen for consideration. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C Bench. Madras C Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Tiruchy. Tiruchy. 4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli. 5.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, III Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.73272+1cc to Mr.N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate Sr.73197 TCA.Nos.115 to 118 of 2010ssv[co]srg 22/11/2018