SETRON EXPORTS, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 14(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1634/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7913 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: I P RATHI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 80HHC; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, AM & SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM I.T.A.NO.1634/MUM/2009 - A.Y 2004-05 SETRON EXPORTS 599, JSS ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR KAPADIA CHAMBERS, CHIRA BAZAR MUMBAI 400 002 PAN NO.AABFS 1150 Q VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE 14 (1) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI I.P.RATHI. REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH. O R D E R PER P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CI T(A)S ORDER DATED 3-2-2009. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE REDU CTION OF CLAIM U/S.80HHC TO RS. NIL AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF RS.34,15,191/-. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ENTI RE SALES PROCEEDS AND ACCRUALS OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT AS COVERE D U/S.28(IID) BY REDUCING THE VALUE OF DEPB FROM THE SALES PROCEEDS OF DEPB. FURTHER ONLY 90% OF SUM COVERED U/S.28(IID) SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE REDUCED WHILE C ALCULATING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS UNDER EXPLANATION BAA TO SECTION 80HHC AND NOT THE ENTIRE SALES PROCEEDS OF DEPB. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IF THE SUM OF RS .3,21,60,005/- BEING DETERMINED AS COVERED U/S.28(IID), SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS THE SUM COVERED U/S.28(IID) THOUGH CLASSIFIED AS DEEMED BUSINESS IN COME BUT THE SAME IS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF INCOME U/S.2(24). 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF T HE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS REPO RTED IN 318 ITR [AT] 87. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF THE CIT[A] AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECO NSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS [CITED SUPRA]. . 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. (P.M.JAGTAP) (P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: FEBRUARY, 2010. P/-* COPY TO- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CITA MUMBAI. 4) CIT CITY MUMBAI 5) DR BENCH MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY /ASST.REGISTRAR,ITAT MUMBAI. 3 SR.NO. PARTICULARS DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2-2-10 P 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3-2-10 P 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.PS/PS 6 ORDER KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER