Nexo Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

ITA/994/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Nexo Industries Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting decisions made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding claims under Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2004-05. The Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's appeal, leading to the current appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The core issues revolved around the interpretation and application of these sections concerning the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme, which is linked to exports. The High Court's decision referenced two significant Supreme Court judgments to guide the resolution of these issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 674040 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAVITA SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Year 2004-05; DEPB; Exporting; Income Tax; Manufacturing; Scrutiny; Tribunal
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB; 260A

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 994 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 994 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2014 Nexo Industries Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 3.6.2.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “B”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 225/CHD/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- I. Whether the Tribunal order is sustainable on the true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 80HHC in declining the claim of DEPB? II. Whether amount of DEPB is derived from and eligible for claim on the true and correct Singh Gurbachan 2014.05.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 994 of 2008 -2- interpretation of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Briefly stated, the facts as narrated in the instant appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of fasteners and exporting goods. The assessee filed its return on 1.11.2004 declaring an income of ` 4,17,22,640/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was framed vide order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure A-1) at an amount of ` 5,29,36,755/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure A-2) partly allowed the appeal. Against the order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure A-2), the assessee as well as the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 3.6.2008 (Annexure A-3) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the present Income Tax Appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that question No. (I) is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 67 DTR Judgments 185. In view of the above, qua question No.(I), the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Topman Exports's case (supra). 5. Regarding question No. (II), it was not disputed that the issue stands concluded against the assessee in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). Answered accordingly against the Singh Gurbachan 2014.05.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 994 of 2008 -3- assessee. 6. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 29, 2014 (JASPAL SINGH) gbs JUDGE Singh Gurbachan 2014.05.28 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "