Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Opera Clothings vs Income Tax Officer-018(1)(3) on 23 January, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Ashok Bhushan
1
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).34566/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/06/2014
in ITA No. 5407/2010 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
M/S OPERA CLOTHINGS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER-018(1)(3) Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for modification of Court's order, permission to
file additional documents, interim relief and office report)
Date : 23/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Ganesh, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bharat L. Gandhi, Adv.
Ms. Vithika Garg, Adv.
Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. R.M. Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Joshi, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The issue, namely, the entitlement of export Signature Not Verified incentives to deduction under Section 80-IB of the Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.01.24 17:16:29 IST Reason: Income Tax Act, 1961 has been squarely decided by this Court in Liberty India vs. C.I.T.1 1 (2009) 9 SCC 328 2 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Limited2 does not in any way erode the efficacy of law laid down in Liberty India (supra) as Meghalaya Steels Limited (supra) was primarily a case where the Court was dealing with transport subsidy, which is a reimbursement of the cost incurred by the manufacturing unit in the North-Eastern part of the Country.
While Liberty India (supra) dealt with a situation of post-manufacture and availability of incentive only in the event there was export of the manufactured goods. Meghalaya Steels Limited (supra), as already noted, dealt with altogether a different situation.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in this special leave petition. Special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
In view of the above, all pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni)
Court Master Court Master
2 (2016) 6 SCC 747