Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court

Imc Limited vs D. Comm. Of I.T. Spec. Range -14 Cal on 22 December, 2008

Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose

                                                                                    1


                                  ITA No. 172 of 2001
                             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax)
                                     ORIGINAL SIDE


    IMC LIMITED                                 Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant

        Versus

    D. COMM. OF I.T. SPEC. RANGE -14 CAL        Defendant/Respondent

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANKAR PRASAD MITRA Date : 22nd December, 2008.
The Court : The appeal was admitted on the following question:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the rent received on letting out of storage tank and handling charges of oil and molasses should form part of the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 8--HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961"?.
Dr.Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the appeal contended that the point has already been decided by the Apex Court in K.K. Doshi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 297 ITR 38 where the question arose whether the perspective effect should be given to 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1991 with effect from April 1, 1992 and the Court held that such amendment is prospective in nature and effect to the explanation, which has been included, should be given prospectively and not by retrospectively and such being the position, Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue also did not join issue with regard thereto and since the matter has already cover by the said decision, it is not necessary for us to decide the said 2 question, which has gone in favour of the assessee and the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the appeallant.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands disposed of . All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) (SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J.) km