ITA Nos.367 to 369 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:
16. 01.2013 (i) ITA No.367 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent (ii) ITA No.368 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent (iii) ITA No.369 of 2011 M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd ...Petitioner versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr.Sanjay Bansal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
(ORAL) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned Income Tax Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ITA Nos.367 to 369 of 2011 -2- the ‘Act’) arising out of the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.
During the couRs.of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has addressed the arguments on question No.(v).which reads as under:- “(v) Whether the Tribunal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case was legally correct in holding that the assessee was like DEPB amount, in respect of Special Import Licence amount, not entitled to deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act even when in respect of Special Import Licence amount, no amendment had been brought on the statute book by the legislatures with effect from 29.12.2005 as in the case of DEPB?.”.
The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (2010) 328 ITR 451.but the said judgment has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Topman Exports v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (2012) 3 SCC, 593.
Therefore, question No.(v) should be decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue and the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act.
Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the argument raised, as the issue is said to be covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Topman Exports' case (supra).Consequently, the above question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the deduction admissible to the ITA Nos.367 to 369 of 2011 -3- assessee under Section 80HHC of the Act.
Appeals stand disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE January 16, 2013 G.Arora/Vimal