IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ITA No. 206 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.8.2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal
......Appellant
Vs.
M/s Nice Overseas, 41, Sector 25, HUDA, Panipat.
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Mr.Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel for revenue.
Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for assessee.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench ‘SMC’ passed in ITA No.
821/DEL/2006 on 25.7.2006 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to
raise following substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT
was right in law in confirming the order of
the CIT(A) directing the AO to allow
deduction under Section 80IB on the
amount of duty drawn back received by the
ITA No. 206 of 2009 [2]assessee which cannot be termed as income
“derived from” an industrial undertaking as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods (1999)
237 ITR 579 (SC)”?
2. Whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT is
right in law in allowing deduction under
Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961
on the total business profits which includes
duty drawn back/export incentives without
considering the provisions of section 80IB
under which the deduction is allowable
only from the income derived from the
industrial undertaking having direct nexus
with the activity of industrial
undertaking?”
2. The assessee received export incentives and claimed deduction
under Section 80IB of the Act. The claim of the assessee in respect
thereof was disallowed following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in CIT v. Sterling Food, (1999) 237 ITR 579. The said view has been
affirmed by the CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee but the
Tribunal restored the same, which view was affirmed by the Tribunal.
3. It is not disputed that the matter is covered against the assessee
ITA No. 206 of 2009 [3]
by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sterling Food, (supra)
and order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj
Oversease v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana.)
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal
is set aside and that of Assessing Officer is restored.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
August 24, 2009 JUDGE
raghav
Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ……..Yes/No