Milton Laminates Ltd., V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-4,

ITA 635/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0495 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER MILTON LAMINATES LTD., CHITRA AMIN APARTMENTS, OPP. OLD RBI, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) PAN NO. AABCM0398K VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-02-2013 / ORDER PER : D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AGAINST THE DIFFER ENT ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A) DATED 30-11-2007 & 29-11-2007. BOTH THES E APPEALS BELONG TO I.T.A. NOS634-635/AHD/2008 A.Y.:-1999-2000 & 2004-05 ITA NOS. 634-635/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1999-2000 &2004-05 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. DCIT 2 SAME ASSESSEE AND WERE DISMISSED BY TRIBUNAL VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 28 TH JULY, 2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS ORDER WAS RECALLED VIDE ORDER DATED 05-10-2012 IN M.A. NOS 75-76/AHD/2012 TO RE-ADJUDICATE GROUND NOS . 3,4&5 OF THESE APPEALS WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING TH E APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS THAT ONLY 90% OF THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF DEPB LICENSE WAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS TO WORK OUT DED UCTION U/S 80HHC(3) AND NOT THE WHOLE OF THE SALE PRICE RECEIV ED ON SALE OF DEPB LICENSE. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT HAD POSITIVE INCOME AS PER TH E WORKING GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ENTITLING THE DECISION TO TH E APPELLANT AND THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF THE SUPREME COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS PER THE MODIFIED WORKING G IVEN FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC(3) OF THE IT ACT, 19 61, CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SECTION 80HHC MADE EFFECTIVE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1-4-98 BY THE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 200 5 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED T HAT THESE GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED FRESH ADJUDICATION AT THE END OF AO IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT 247 CTR 353. FOR THIS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AS SESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS. 634-635/AHD/2008 A.Y. 1999-2000 &2004-05 PAGE NO MILTON LAMINATES LTD. VS. DCIT 3 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 28/02/2013 A.K. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#