M/S. MUDRA EXPORTS (INDIA), MUMBAI V. ITO-20(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6435/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1612 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 6435/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) MUDRA EXPORTS (INDIA) , D-5TH FLOOR, OBEROI GARDEN ESTATE CHANDIVALI FARMS RD, CHANDIVALI, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI -400 072 PAN: AACFM 1065 B VS ITO-20(2)(2) , 6TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI -400 011 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PITAMBAR DAS ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT (A)S ORDER DATED 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80HHC OF RS 9,30,107/-. 1.1 WHILE DOING SO THE CIT (A0 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE DEPB RECEIPT OF RS 1,63,69,405/- I S NOT AN EXPORT INCENTIVE. 1.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND IN THE ALTER NATIVE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT ON TRANSF ER OF DEPB LICENSE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPORT INCENTIVE AND NOT THE ENTIR E DEPB RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUND OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 2. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES AGREE THAT THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE NOW COVERED BY SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF TO PMAN EXPORTS VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (29 DTR 153). MUDRA EXPORTS (INDIA) 2 3. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT (A) HAD REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WORKING NECESSARY RELIEF U/S 80HHC, AS PER AMENDED LAW, TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALREAD Y IN SEISIN OF THE MATTER, AS A RESULT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT (A), WE M ODIFY THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT (A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RECOM PUTE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY SPECIAL BENCHS DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). A COPY OF THE SAID SPECIAL BENCH ORDER IS DEEMED TO BE ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF THIS ORDER. 5. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES I N THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 26TH OCT OBER 2009. SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 26TH OCTOBER 2009 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-XX, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT 20, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR CHAVAN* I.T.A.T., MUMBAI MUDRA EXPORTS (INDIA) 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.10.09 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26.10.09 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER