The High Court of Delhi allowed appeals arising from ITAT judgments for AYs 1997-98 and 1998-99. Relying on its earlier precedent in ITA 467/2003, the court held that total turnover for Section 80HHC includes all business turnover, not merely export turnover.
Appeals allowed; ITAT order set aside; question answered in favour of the Appellant.
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.
$~R3,4
RAHUL MEHTA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocates.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate.
AND
ITA 736/2005
RAHUL MEHTA
..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Udit Naresh, Advocates.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
%
O R D E R 13.12.2018
respectively.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in Section 80 HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee?”
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 13, 2018 ss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in concluding that turnover under Section 80HHC includes only export business turnover and not other business turnover?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rahul Mehta v. The Commissioner of Income TaxFollowed¶21
ITA 467/2003 Rahul Mehta v. The Commissioner of Income Tax
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAHUL MEHTA
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
S. MURALIDHAR
SANJEEV NARULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
