Case Law Details

Case Name : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No.5710/M/2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/05/2012
Related Assessment Year : 2003-04
Courts : All ITAT (4266) ITAT Mumbai (1423)

In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports 318 ITR 87 in view of the fact that the above decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29.6.2010.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

ITA No.5710/M/2010 – ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 

Vs.

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

Date of pronouncement: 2.5.2012

Online GST Certification Course by TaxGuru & MSME- Click here to Join

O R D E R

PER S.S. GODARA, J.M:

The revenue has filed the instant appeal against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-1, Mumbai dated 3.3.2010 for the assessment year 2003-04.

2. In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports 318 ITR 87 in view of the fact that the above decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29.6.2010.

3. In the assessment order, qua the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80HHC, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was having a turnover in excess of Rs. 10 Crores. Hence, the amount of entire DEPB of Rs. 1225.28 lacs regardless of the fact as to whether it is sold or unsold is to be removed out of the eligible profit since the assessee was not satisfying the conditions given in (a) and (b) of third proviso to sec. 80HHC.

4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after considering the arguments raised by the learned AR held that the same was covered by the Special Bench decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO 318 ITR 87. Hence, the Ld. CIT (A) directed the AO to recomputed the deduction.

5. It is also not out of place to mention here that the Special Bench decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports (supra) was overruled by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on 29.6.2010. Therefore, the revenue has filed the instant appeal before us only on the said ground i.e., order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court.

6. As already stated hereinabove, the main issue in ground nos. 1 & 2 filed by the revenue is that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has reversed the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports (supra).

7. During the course of hearing, both the learned representatives have very fairly stated that since the Hon’ble Apex Court has reversed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Topman Exports vs. CIT, therefore, the issue involved is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Special Bench, ITAT Mumbai decision as 318 ITR 87 has been upheld.

8. Consequently, in view of the fact that the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we are of the considered opinion that nothing survives in the instant appeal for further adjudication. Hence, we dismiss this appeal filed by the revenue.

9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of May, 2012.

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25145)
Type : Judiciary (9970)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *