TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the argument, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press ground no. 4, hence, the same is also dismissed. The remaining grounds contested by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- "(2)(a) That the Learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the assessment order for declining the claim export incentives Duty Drawback/DEPB u/s 80lB on the ground of placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 207 CTR 243 (P & H), whereas the Duty Drawback received by the appellant is derived from an industrial undertaking as per the genesis of the word derived in its true sense and spirits. b) That the action of the CIT(A) is unsustainable in d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sterling Foods Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ritesh Indu. Ltd. (2004) 274 ITR 324 and also on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Exports Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), the AO held that export benefits are not the profits derived from industrial undertaking and not includible in the income of the assessee for including special deduction. The Assessing Officer considered the surrendered income as income from other sources by making an addition of Rs. 50 lakh. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee filed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tations submitted by both the parties, we observe that the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty India has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) dated 31.08.2009. In this judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the ratio of its own judgment in the case of Sterling Foods (supra), judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ritesh Inds. Ltd. (supra) and the judgment in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Lakhwinder Singh (2009) 317 ITR 209 (P&H) and has held that section 80-IB of the Act provides for allowing a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in factory building. 7. Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that the assessee concealed actual particulars of purchase, sales, opening and closing stock and during the course of survey, a surveying authority found a substantial difference in the valuation of stock and the assessee voluntarily surrendered an amount of Rs.22,30,000/- in this regard. The DR further submitted that the amount of difference in stock valuation is not an income derived from business and it does not form a part of the net profits eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act, therefore, the authorities below rightly added the surrendered amount to the income of the assessee and also rightly denied the deduction and exemption u/s 80-IB of the Act. 8. At the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rate of last year comes to Rs.37,87,115/-. So an amount of Rs.22.30 lacs was surrendered. It is submitted that most of the stock lying in the premises was of samples/assorted items which carry no commercial value and were accumulated during the courts of export business for last several years. Despite our submission with the authorities, the stock was valued at the cost price, which resulted into increase in valuation and amount surrendered to by peace and harmonious relationship with the department. So the amount of surrender was due to valuation difference and thee was not unexplained investment in stock as defined in section 69." 11. In view of above, this was accepted by the Assessing Officer and it was specifically stated tha....