Bombay HC ITAT dismissed an income tax appeal. The court held that the assessee's case was squarely covered by Liberty India, distinguishing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., and found no question of law arose.
The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. No question of law arises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
21 itxa 1120 of 2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2017
M/s. Opera Clothing (now known as
Opera Clothing P. Ltd.
…
Appellant
versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-18(1)(3)
…
Respondent
Mr. Bharat L. Gandhi with Ms. Poonam Kotkar I/by Mr. Swapnil Newaskar, for
Appellant.
Mr. Sham V. Walve, for Respondent.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE: 22nd JULY, 2019
P.C.:
1. This Appeal is filed by the Assessee to challenge the judgment of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short). The following question is
presented for our consideration :
“Whether the duty drawback of Appellant which is included in the
purchase of the appellant which forms the part of expenses of the
eligible unit relying upon the subsequent event judgments reported
in Citation 383 ITR 217 SC CIT V/s. Meghalaya distinguish liberty
India reported in 317 ITR 218, which is nothing but deemed to have
been paid” ?
2. The case of the assessee seeking exemption of the income arising out of its
SSP 1/2
21 itxa 1120 of 2017.doc
export business, is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Liberty India reported in 317 ITR 200 since the receipts in question arise out of the
duty draw back payment of the Government of India. In Liberty India, as is well
known, the Supreme Court had held that the DEPB benefits (similar to the duty draw
back payments) would not qualify for exemption from tax since the same are not
directly connected to the assessee's export business.
3.Learned Counsel for the assessee however, placed reliance on the
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax
V/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.1 We are conscious that in such decision, the Supreme Court
had granted the benefit of exemption in respect of a subsidy received from the
Government. In the process, the Supreme Court had held that the ratio laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) would not apply in such a case.
However, we cannot apply the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (Supra) since the case of the present assessee is squarely
covered by the decision in the case of Liberty India (Supra). No question of law arises.
The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )
( AKIL KURESHI, J. )
1 [2016] 383 ITR 217 (SC)
SSP 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the duty drawback included in the purchase of the appellant, which forms part of expenses of the eligible unit, is deemed to have been paid based on subsequent event judgments distinguishing L
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.Distinguished¶22
CIT v. Meghalaya 383 ITR 217 SC
Liberty India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income TaxApplied¶21
Liberty India 317 ITR 200 SC
M/s. Opera Clothing P. Ltd.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-18(1)(3)
Akil Kureshi
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court