TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 80 IB amounting to Rs. 1,26,12,083/-, caused by exclusion of "duty drawback" from computation of "eligible profit" by observing/holding that "The question whether the duty drawback is an incidental profit or a profit of the first degree depends on the business model followed by the assessee. In the present case Dharam Pal Premchand 317 ITR 353 (Del) is not applicable and the case is squarely covered by Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC)". 2. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)", on the facts and circumstances of the present case should have held that the controversy deserved to decided in favour of the appellant by referring to: (a) earlier decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Desraj vs. CIT reported in (2008) 301 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was regarding Excise Duty refund and not any export incentive such as Duty Drawback as in the present case. As per the facts noted by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in that case, the assessee was entitled to exemption from Excise Duty but the procedure for claiming exemption was that the assessee would first clear the goods from its bonded warehouse by paying the excise duty and, thereafter, the assessee would claim refund of excise duty on the seventh day of the succeeding month in which clearance had been made. The net result was that in the first instance, Excise Duty was paid by the assessee while clearing the goods, from the bonded warehouse which was subsequently refunded in the succeeding month. Under these facts, it was noted by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee, it amounts to export incentive, which is not derived from industrial undertaking as per this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and therefore, deduction u/s 80IB is not allowable with regard to this income but in the case of Dharam Pal Premchand (supra), the facts were different because in that case, the exact amount of Excise Duty paid by the assessee was refunded to the assessee and therefore, this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not applicable in the facts of the present case because in the present case, it is not the claim of the assessee that exact amount of duty by the assessee has been refunded to it. Therefore, in the present case, in our humble opinion, the judgment of H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to by the assessee in the synopsis are not applicable in the present case. 7. It is also stated in the synopsis that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Topman Exports (supra), it was held that the face value of DEPB is related to export business as it is given by Government to neutralize the cost of imports. It is also stated in the synopsis that subsequent sale of such DEPB constitute different business and excess as adjustment thereof is of business wholly not connected with the export business. It is stated that both the profits are profit derived from business of industrial undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. We find no merit in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heet of the assessee and it was pointed out that the shareholders fund was to the extent of Rs. 4,472 lacs at the end of the year whereas the investment was only Rs. 186.75 lac. He also submitted that the list of investment in share is available on page 28 of the paper book, which includes investment in foreign company also i.e. Rs. 1,55,043/- in Super Tannery (U.K.) Ltd. and Safety Solutions S.R.O. Rs. 4,42,755/. He submitted that the income from foreign company is taxable and therefore, investment in these shares should not be considered for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per page 6 o....