ASST RG 14(1), V. BABULAL H. BAFNA,

MA 684/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6206 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) M.A. NO. 684/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 418/MUM/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2003-04 THE ACIT, 14(1), MUMBAI VS. SHRI BABULAL H. BAFNA, 25/27, MATKA GALLI, PODAR BLDG., 1 ST FLOOR, VITHALWADI, KALBADEVI, MUMBAI-400 002 PAN-AAEPB 7979D (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI JITENDRA YADAV RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAKESH JOSHI O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE J UDGEMENT DELIVERED ON 29.6.2010 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KALPAT ARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS ITA (L) 2887 OF 2009 WHEREIN THE VIEWS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN HAS BEEN REVERSED. IN EXERCI SE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN US U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT, PARA 6 AT PAGE 3 IN ITA NO. 418/M/08 NOW BE READ AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THE REVENUE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE IS M.A. NO. 684/M/2010. 2 ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT IN RESPEC T OF DEPB ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED DURING THE YEAR AS REQUIRED U/S. 28(IIID) O F THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KALPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS IN ITA (L) 2887 OF 2009, WE DIRECT THE AO TO REWORK THE RELIEF U/S. 80HHC IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIG H COURT. 2. IN THE RESULT, M.A FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI M.A. NO. 684/M/2010. 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 7 . 0 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 8 .0 3 .2011 ______ SR. PS/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/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______