2010 (8) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant.   Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent.   ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.   1. The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against order dated 23.9.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT") passed in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to in section 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of Income Tax Act, 1961 means the difference between the sale price of DEPB and the face value of DEPB ignoring the fact that the entire amount represents the profit in the hands of assessee?   IV. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPB from sale price of DEPB for calculating profi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Duty Free Remission Scheme (DFRC) which was business income under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie). The Assessing Officer made calculation after treating the said amount as business income. On appeal, the said view was upheld but on further appeal to the ITAT, following the judgment of the Special Bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, the view of the assessee was upheld.   3. We h....