TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi, dated 30.3.2007, is wrong on facts and bad in law; ii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the disallowances of- (i) Rs. 1,50,000/- out of foreign travel expenses, (ii) Rs. 1,20,000/- out of vehicle expenses (iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- out of telephone expenses and Rs. 50,000/- out of guest house expenses as personal expenses. iii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,79,22,048/- under section 80HHC of the Act. iv) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in treating Rs. 4,98,91,301/-, the net credit balance of DEPBS account, as profit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o vary, alter, amend or add to the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the above appeal." 3. This case was ealier adjudicated by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2925/Del/2007 vide order dated 31.12.2009. The tribunal had adjudicated the issue as under:- "The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 2003-04. 2. Ground No.1 is as follows : "That the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi dated 30.3.07 is wrong on facts and bad in law." This ground is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowances of (i) Rs.1,50,000/- out of the fore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Topman Exports (supra). We order accordingly. Needless to mention that the A.O. shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. Respectfully following the above order of ITAT in assessee's sister concern case, the issue about calculation of 80HHC in respect of DEPB credits is set aside and restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions. 6. Ground Nos.1 and 2 are dismissed whereas ground no.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court immediately after conclusion of the hearing on 31st Decem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B representing the excess proceeds of DEPB over its face value is liable to be considered u/s. 28(iiid) at the time of its sale. 3. The Revenue had filed the appeal in the High Court Adjudicate at Bombay against the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT. The Bombay High Court has reversed the decision of the Tribunal and the judgement of the Bombay High Court is reported as Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, 328 ITR 451. 4. Since the tribunal had simply followed Special Bench decision in Topman Exports (Supra) which stands over ruled, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in all these cases and remit the cases back to the tribunal to decide these appeals on merits after taking into ac....