Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Liberty Footwear Co. vs Commr.Of Income Tax on 11 February, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5223/2008
M/S LIBERTY FOOTWEAR CO. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMMR.OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 11/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s) Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Arna Das, Adv.
Mr. Somil Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Monika Ghai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Vinod Lakhina Date: 2016.02.16 10:12:07 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5223/2008 M/S LIBERTY FOOTWEAR CO. ...APPELLANT VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. The question as framed by the High Court in the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before it is in the following terms:
“Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow netting in interest for computing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-Tax Act?” 2
2. The aforesaid question has been answered by this Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 67 DTR (SC) 205]. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the question as framed really does not arise and the High Court had committed an error in framing the question in the above terms and in answering the same. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Revenue has taken us through the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and also the decision of this Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai [(2003) 5 SCC 590].
3. As in the present appeal by the Assessee we are only concerned with the correctness of the opinion of the High Court on the question framed by it, we 3 answer the same in favour of the Assessee following the decision of this Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. (supra). However, if the Revenue has any grievance(s) with regard to the question framed and the relevance thereof to the present case, it will be open for the Revenue to take out such remedies as may be available to it in law including the remedy of moving the High Court by way of review.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 11, 2016