Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs M/S Trb Exports Pvt. Ltd on 15 February, 2011
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
ITA No.852 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA Nos. 852 and 854 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.2.2011
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana
....Appellant.
Versus
M/s TRB Exports Pvt. Ltd.
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos.852 and 854 of 2010 as both the appeals involve common questions of law.
2. ITA No.852 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order dated 31.8.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh in ITA No.749/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 claiming following substantial questions of law:-
"I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not holding that the total sale consideration inclusive of face ITA No.852 of 2010 -2- value of DEPB and premium amount received thereof represents profit chargeable under sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
II. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not holding that profit on transfer of DEPB entitlement represents the entire amount inclusive of premium of sale of such DEPB?
III. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the word "profit" referred to in section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 means the difference between the sale price of DEPB and the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact that the entire amount represents the profit in the hands of assessee?
IV. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPB from sale price of DEPB for calculating profit under section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the face value is the cost incurred by the assessee to acquire the DEPB?ITA No.852 of 2010 -3-
V. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the word profit referred to in sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires any artificial cost to be interpolated to the extent that the face value of DEPB/DFRC should be deducted from the sale proceed for the purpose of determination of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
VI. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has failed to appreciate that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly computed in accordance with amendment made by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998?"
3. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by order of this Court dated 16.8. 2010 in I.T.A. No.299 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s F.C. Sondhi & Company (P) Ltd.
4. In view of above, the appeals are disposed of in same terms. The questions proposed are answered accordingly and the matter is remanded to the ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law. If the respondents are aggrieved by this order, they will ITA No.852 of 2010 -4- be at liberty to move this Court.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
February 15, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE