Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

ACIT, Circle-33(1), New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Hansita C/o Ajay Bhalla, W-78A Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.
December, 12th 2014
           IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                DELHI BENCH : `C : NEW DELHI
      BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
                              AND
              SHRI C.M. GARG., JUDICIAL MEMBER
                      ITA No.3083/Del /2013
                     Assessment Year : 2002-03

ACIT, Circle-33(1),              Vs.               M/s. Hansita
New Delhi.                                         C/o Ajay Bhalla, W-78A
                                                   Greater Kailash-II,
                                                   New Delhi.

                                                  (PAN AAAFM 3310 G)

                             C.O No.196/Del/2013
                                 A.Y.2002-03

M/s Hansita                        Vs.             ACIT, Circle-33(1)
C/o Ajay Bhalla, W-78A                             New Delhi.
Greater Kailash-II
New Delhi.


(PAN AAAFM 3310 G)
(Appellant)                                 (Respondent)
           Appellant by :      Shri Satpal Singh, Sr.D.R.
            Respondent by:     Shri G.N. Gupta, Advocate.

                                   ORDER

PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM:


1.     This appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross objection of the assessee

have been directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi

dated 28.02.2013 in appeal No.033/2010-11 for AY. 2002-03.



2.     The sole ground raised by the Revenue reads as under:

     "1.     The CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed the
             deduction u/s 80HHC of the IT Act despite the fact that the
                                                               ITA No.3083/Del /2013   2
                                                               CO No.196/Del/2013



            assessee itself had not claimed only deduction u/s 80HHC its
            return of income filed u/s 148 of the IT Act."

3.    Apropos aforementioned sole ground of the Revenue we have heard rival

arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed

on record before us, inter alia assessment order, impugned order of CIT(A)

revised computation filed by the assessee and decisions relied by both the parties

including decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of

CIT(A) Sam Global Securities Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 682 (Delhi).

4.    The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has

erred in directing the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 30HHC of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) despite the fact that the assessee itself had not

claimed any deduction in this return of income filed u/s 148 of the Act.




5.    The ld. counsel for the assessee replied that the assessee submitted the

claim u/s 80HHC of the Act was submitted by revised computation of income

on 03.11.2009 filed before the AO which was accepted by the deduction u/s

80HHC of the Act has reduced to zero without any basis. The ld. counsel further

contended that the CIT(A) rightly followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT Mumbai (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC)

and extended the benefit to the assessee. The ld. counsel further submitted that

in view of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Sam

Global Securities Ltd. (Supra) the claim u/s 80HHC is submitted by way of

revised computation of income is allowable even if the same was not placed in

original return of income.
                                                             ITA No.3083/Del /2013   3
                                                             CO No.196/Del/2013



6.    On careful consideration of above submissions we observe that the AO

accepted the revised computation of income wherein the assessee placed claim

of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act but reduced the deduction to Zero without

any justified reason. On appeal before the CIT(A), the same claim was allowed

following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topman

Exports (Supra), the relevant operative part of impugned order reads as under:

     "9.     Keeping in view the observations made, in the aforesaid
     paragraphs by the Hon'ble Suprme Court of India, in the case of Topman
     Exports Vs. CIT, Mumbai (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC), I am of the opinion that
     the issue involved in the present appeal stands covered by the ratio laid
     down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case, and
     therefore, the Assessing Officer was not correct in taking the view in the
     impugned judgment that the entire sale proceeds of the DEPB realized on
     transfer of the DEPB, and not just the difference between the sale value
     and the face value of the DEPB represent profit on transfer of the DEPB.
     Respectfully following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
     the case of Topman Exports v. CIT (supra), I direct the AO to compute the
     deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, in line with the directions of the
     Hon'ble Court (supra) after giving a reasonable opportunity to the
     assessee."

7.    Under facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered

opinion that the grievance of the department is squarely covered in favour of the

assessee by the decision of Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in the case of CIT Vs.

Sam Global (Supra) and respectfully following the same, we hold that the

CIT(A) was right in accepting the revised computation at income wherein the

assessee submitted claim of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act which was not

placed in the original computation of income.

8.    At the same time, we also observe that the CIT(A) was also right in

following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports
                                                              ITA No.3083/Del /2013   4
                                                              CO No.196/Del/2013



Vs. CIT (supra) and directing the AO to recomputed the deduction u/s 80HHC

as per ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, we are unable to see

any perversity, ambiguity or any other valid reason to interfere with the

impugned order and we upheld the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the

Revenue is dismissed.

Cross objection of the assessee




9.      Since by earlier part of this order, we have upheld the order of the

CIT(A), which granted relief for the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the

Revenue. Hence, cross objections filed by the assessee only to support the

impugned order not survive for adjudication in detail on merits. Therefore, cross

objections of the assessee are also dismissed.

10.     In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross objections of the

assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/12/2014.

      Sd/-                                                       Sd/-
  (G.D. AGARWAL)                                         (C.M. GARG)
  VICE PRESIDENT                                          Judicial Member

Dated: 11/12/2014.
AK. VERMA/-
Copy forwarded to
1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR
                                                 Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Careers

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions