ULTIMATE FASHION MAKER LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

ITA/1253/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Ultimate Fashion Maker Ltd, the appellant, contesting an order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which denied them certain deductions under Section 80 IB and Section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2001-02. The primary issues revolved around the entitlement to deductions on duty drawback and interest earned on FDRs. The High Court's decision partially favored the appellant, aligning with previous judgments on the duty drawback issue, but upheld the tribunal's decision on the interest earned from FDRs, referencing established precedents that supported the revenue's stance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 762701 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Eltek SGS Pvt Ltd: 300 ITR 6 (Del.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Limited: ITA 1441/2006, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment: 289 ITR 475
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PREM LATA BANSAL; MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA; ANSHUL SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA; SANDEEP SAPRA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Deduction; Duty Drawback; Income Tax; Interest on FDRs
• Section: 80-IB; 80 HHC

Judgement Text

"ITA 1253/08 Page No.1 of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 02.12.2008 + ITA 1253/2008 ULTIMATE FASHION MAKER LTD ... Appellant - versus – COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr O.P. Sapra with Mr Sandeep Sapra For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta and Ms Anshul Sharma CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2556/Del/2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. The learned counsel for the appellant / assessee has proposed three questions as substantial ITA 1253/08 Page No.2 of 3 questions of law which, according to him, require consideration of this court. The questions as proposed are as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80 IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the duty drawback amounting to Rs 2,58,06,330/- ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deductions under Section 80 IB of the said Act on interest earned on FDRs of Rs 82,370/- ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80 HHC of the said Act on the interest earned on FDRs amounting to Rs 82,370/- ?” 2. Insofar as the proposed question No.1 is concerned, the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondent / revenue agree that the same stands covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Eltek SGS Pvt Ltd: 300 ITR 6 (Del.) as also in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand ITA 1253/08 Page No.3 of 3 Limited: ITA 1441/2006 decided on 27.11.2008. Consequently, insofar as the first question is concerned, we allow the appeal of the assessee on that question holding in favour of the assessee in view of the aforesaid decisions. 3. As regards the other two questions, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the tribunal. In any event, no substantial question of law arises with regard to the proposed question Nos. 2 and 3. We may note that insofar as the proposed question No.3 is concerned, the same also stands covered in favour of the revenue by virtue of this court’s decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment: 289 ITR 475. The tribunal has followed the said decision. 4. Nothing further survives in this appeal. The same stands disposed of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J RAJIV SHAKDHER, J December 02, 2008 dutt "