Dismissed
Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal v. Kamini Jain
Punjab & Haryana HCITA/87/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010
Date of Decision: May 5, 2010
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal
..Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamini Jain, Prop. M/s K.T.M. Exports, Panipat
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is directed by the revenue, challenging order dated 12.12.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 308/D/2008, in respect of the Assessment Year 2003-04. The appellant-revenue has claimed the following substantive question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the A.O. to allow deduction
I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010
2
under Section 80-HHC, on export incentives, received by the assessee, as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of Section 80 HHC(IA) read with Section 80-HHC(3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC(4C) of the Act?”
The aforesaid question is no longer res integra and has
been answered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Janatha Cashew Exporting Co. v. CIT, [2009] 309 ITR 440 (SC) . It has been held that if the assessee was a supporting manufacturer then it would be entitled to claim benefits under Section 80HHC on production of a disclaimer certificate and fresh computation of deduction was required in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, in order to qualify for a claim of benefit under Section 80HHC, disclaimer certificate is required and the assessee has to be a supporting manufacturer. It is evident from the record that the assessee has been a supporting manufacturer and has produced a disclaimer certificate from the manufacturer. In para 6 of the order passed by the CIT(A), these facts have been conceded by the revenue. The relevant portion of para 6 reads thus:-
“6. Assessee is a manufacturer and exporter of Handloom products, where assessee manufactured the products and supplied to another exporter who finally exported these products, therefore, the assessee is
I.T.A. No. 87 of 2010
3
supporting manufacturer and exporter. The assessee has received a disclaimer certificate from the main exporter for claiming benefit u/s 80HHC. …….”
The aforesaid factual as well as legal position could not
be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. Accordingly, the question is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 5, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order allowing deduction under Section 80HHC for a supporting manufacturer treating them at par with a direct exporter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Janatha Cashew Exporting Co. v. CITFollowed¶21
[2009] 309 ITR 440 (SC)
5 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal
Smt. Kamini Jain, Prop. M/s K.T.M. Exports, Panipat
M.M. Kumar
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court