CIT V. ANUJ GOEL

ITA/187/2011

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax against various respondents, primarily concerning the interpretation and application of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act in relation to the 'profit' on the sale of DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) credits. The core legal questions revolved around the correct interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the deduction under Section 80HHC for profits on DEPB sales. The Tribunal had initially followed the decision in Topman Exports, which was later overruled by a Special Bench of the ITAT. The High Court's decision to remit the cases back to the Tribunal was influenced by this change in the legal interpretation as established by the Special Bench.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720448 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Topman Export Vs. ITO [ITA No. 5769/Mum./2006], Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Co-Op. Society
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA; KAVITA JHA; SOMNATH SHUKIA; PRAKASH KUMAR; MANISH KUMAR; O P SAPRA; AMIT DAYAL; PANKAJ JAIN; D K GOYAL; VIJAY NAIR; MANISH CHAUDHARY; RAKESH GUPTA; R K AGGARWAL; I POONAM AHUJA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAMAL SAWHNEY; ABHISHEK MARATHA; SURUCHI AGGARWAL; ANUPAM TRIPATHI; AMIT SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: DEPB; Income Tax; Taxable income; Special bench decision; Remit back to tribunal
• Section: 28; 80HHC; 28 (iiid); 28(iii); 80H

Judgement Text

"THE HBGH COURT OF DELH0 AT NEW DELHS Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2017 (1) ITA 404/2010 COIvaiVSISSSONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX pvt. LTD. (2) ITA 708/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (3) ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHSLCO EXPORTS. (4) ITA 927/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHBLCd EXPORTS (5) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (6) ITA 1886/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' VERSUS NITIN KUMAR SADH ITA N(). ITA 404/2010 Si ors.connected matters ..APPELLANT .RESPONDENT , . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT APPELLANT . „RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT^ Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified (7) BTA 1887/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES. (8) ITA 1896/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS FOL KANT JHA f9) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PAL ENTERPRISES (10) ITA 1957/2010 COMMISSEONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (11) ITA 1958/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ZENELENI LEATHER WEAR - (12) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RICHA APPARELS (13) 1960/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS KAPOOR INDUSTRIES ITANo. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters ..APPELLANT . „RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . . .RESPOWDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT • . . APPELLANT , „RESPOiS5DENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT• „ . .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 5 (14) ITA 1980/201Q COMM8SSBONER OF 0NCOME TAX VERSUS AHUJA radios' (15) 8TA 2074/2010 COMMBSSIOWER OF IMCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS (16) 8TA 14/2011 COMMSSSBONER OF ilMCOME TAX VERSUS SANGEETA JAIM ' (17) ITA 15/2011 CO!VSSVllSSSO^aER OF IMCOME TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECH (18) BTA 67/2011 COMMSSSBONER OF DNCOME TAX VERSUS POROLATOR 0NDBA LTD. (19) ITA 177/2011 COMMSSSlbNER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS BALDEV RAJ JAGG0 ITANo. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters „ . APPELLANT ij . ^RESPONDEIMT . , APPELLANT . . „RESPONDEiSJT . . APPELLANT . , .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT : . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 5 (20) ITA 178/2011 COEVJMBSSiONEIl OF BtSlCOME TAX VERSUS BNDU GUPTA (21) CTA 181/2011 COMMISSBONER OF BNCOIViE TAX VERSUS SANGEETAJAIN (22) ITA 182/2011 COMNBSSSONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (23) BTA 184/2011 COlVilVilSSlONER OF SNCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) ITA 185/2011 COMMISSBONER OF INCOBVIE TAX VERSUS VJBCAS KALRA (25) STA 187/2011 CO|V|[VlBSSiONER OF IISICOIViE TAX VERSUS ANOJ GOEL . APPELLANT „ . .RESPOWOENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT „ ,. .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPOB^IDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (26) BTA 723/2009 COBVIMBSSIONER OF BNCOMIE TAX ITANo. ITA 404/2010 S( ors.connected matters . APPELLANT Page 4 of 5 VERSUS PRBYANKA OVERSEAS P. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukia, Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr.-Manish Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Amit Dayal, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Nair and Mr. Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms. I Poonam Ahuja, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SBKRD HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA 1. Whether Reporters, of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? . 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? SlKRl. 1. For orders, see ITA 12 of 2011. .K.Sii™) JUDGE .JUDGE- FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb fM.L.MEHTA) ^^ ITA No. ITA 404/2010 & ors.connected matters Page 5 of 5 r THE HIGH COURT OF Judgm Decisi (1) ITA 12/2011 COMMISSIONER OF llSSCOME TAX VERSUS PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD., (2) ITA 404/20io COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME TAX VERSUS ARJAN IMPEX PVT. LTD. (3) 708/2010 •COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (4) ITA 793/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS. (5) ITA 927/2010 CO,MMiSSIO.NER'.,OF INCOME.TAX VERSUS PHILCO EXPORTS (6) ITA 1080/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SPENTEX INDUSTRIES (7) ITA 1886/2010 ' COMMISSIONER OF BNCOME TAX 1 ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters NEW DELHI 2nt Reserved on: 10.02.2,011 on Delivered On: 18.02.2011 , APPELLANT RESPONDENT . , . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . , APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Page 1 of 6 VERSUS ISliTiM KOMAR SAOH (8) ITA 1887/2010 CONMSSSiONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS iCAPOOR INDUSTRfES. (9) ETA .1896/2010 COMMSSSIONER OF INCOME TAX ' ' ' VERSUS FOiiCANTJHA •. go) ITA 1899/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ENTERPRISES' aD.ITA 1957/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS PRAVEEN INDOSTRIES P¥T„ LTD. (12) ITA 1958/2010. • • COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS ZEN E LIN I LEATHER WEAR (13) ITA 1959/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 VERSUS RICHA APPARELS , (14) 1960/2010 ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters „ .RESPONDENT 8^ . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . , APPELLANT, . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT .. . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Page 2 of 6 COMMiSSDOWER OF IISSGOME TAX VERSUS iCAPOOR iESEDOSTRIES (15) BTA 1980/2010 COMMSSSiONER OF HSiCOME TAX VERSUS AHOJA RADIOS (16) BTA 2074/2010 COMHVS1SSIOSS0ER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS SHOREWALA OVERSEAS ' (17) BTA 14/2011 COMJVSnSSBONER OF SNCOME TAX VERSUS SAWGEETA JABN (18) BTA 15/2011 COMMBSSSONER OF INCOiVIE TAX VERSUS LEATHER TECB^ (19) BTA 67/2011 ' COMMISSBONER.OF INCOME TAX VERSUS POROLATOR INDIA LTD. BTA 177/2011 COMMBSSiONER OF BNCO.ME TAX BALDEV RAJ JAGGI (21) iTA 178/2011 VERSUS ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters . ..APPELLANT „RESPOi IDEMT . . APPELLANT .RESPOMOENT .RESPOMOEMT . „ APPELLAI^T .RESPONDENT APPELLANT .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT Page 3 of 6 COMMBSSiONER OF IlM'COME TAX. VERSUS INDO GUPTA (22) ITA 181/2011 COMMBSSIOBSSER OF BIMCOME TAX VERSUS •SANGEETA JAiW (23} BTA 182/2011 COMMISSBOMER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATION (24) BTA 184/2011 COMMiSSBOMER OF QNCOME TAX VERSUS CLC CORPORATBON (25) BTA 185/2011 ' COMMDSSBONER OF QNCO.ME TAX VERSUS VBKAS HCALRA (26) BTA 187/2011 CONMISSBOS^ER OF BBSiCOME TAX VERSUS .AM-yj GOEL . APPELLANT .RESPONDENT . „ APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT . . APPELLANT . .RESPONDENT Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2011 Decision Delivered On: 18.02.2011 (27) BTA 723/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters' . „ APPELLANT Page 4 of 6 VERSUS PiRiYANKA OVERSEAS P. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE; Mr.' Kamal Se Ms. Suruchi Standing Cc Advocate. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES: Mr. Ajay Voh Mr. Somnath Mr. Manish Dayal, Mr. Pa Nair and Mr Gupta, Advoi Poonam Ahuj CORAM.:- HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKR HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEH 1. Wliether Reporters of Local new to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter 0 3. Whether the Judgment should b „ . .RESPONIOEWT whney, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, ^ggarwal, Mr. Anupam Tripathi,Sr. unsel with Mr. Amit Srivastava, ra. Advocate with Mr. Kavita Jha, Shukia, Mr. Prakash Kumar and Kumar, Mr. O.P. Sapra, ,Mr. Arriit nkaj Jain, Mr. D.K. Goyal, Mr. Vijay Manish Chaudhary, Dr. Rakesh ;ate with Mr. RK. Aggarwal, Ms.' a. Advocates. TA spapers may be allowed r not? 2 reported in the Digest? A.SC. SIKRL 1. 1. All these appeals involved commor|i question of law. For the sake of convenience, we can reproduce the qLji these appeals:-. ' \"(a) Whether on a correc relevant statutory provisions, law in directing the Asse deduction under section 80H of \"profit\" on sale of DEPB? estions of law framed in one of interpretation of the Tribunal was justified n ssing Officer to allow HC of the Act in respect (b)Whether on the facts of th was justified in law in im assessee would be entitled first proviso below sub-Sectio respect of DEPB Credit utilizeb e present case, Tribunal pliedly holding that the :o deduction as per the n 3 of Section 80HHC in by the assessee?\" 2. The orders passed by the Tribuni^l in all these cases are' brief because of the reason that the Tribuna was supposed to) the decision of the ITAt case of Topman Export Vs. ITO [ITA N dated 11'^ August; 2009.]. By that judgr ITA No, ITA 12/2011 S( ors.connected matters has simply followed (which it Special Bench, Mumbai in the D. 5769/|V|um./2006 decided on nent, the Special Bench of the Page 5 of 6 Tribunal has held that the face value of DE; PB is chargeable to tax u/s 28 at is, when the application for rity pursuant to exports and cess of sale proceeds of DEPB d u/s 28(iiid) at the time of its (iiib) at the time of accrual of income, th DEPB is filed with the competent autho profit in sale of DEPB representing the ex over its face value is liable, to be consider^ sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal i Bombay against the aforesaid decision of The Bombay High Court has reversed th^ the judgment of the Bombay High Court of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru CoSours in the High Court Adjudicate at the Special Bench of the ITAT. decision of the Tribunal and 5. These appeals stand disposed of on FEBRUARY 18, 2011, skb iTANo. ITA 12/2011 & ors.connected matters is reported as Commssssomier 328 ITR 451. 4., Since the Tribunal had simply followed Special Bench decision in Topman Exports (supra) which stands over ruled, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in all these cases and remit the cases back to the Tribunal to decide these appeals on merits after tal