TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 27/10/2010 for re-adjudication on two issues, which is common in the three captioned assessment years. For the aforesaid purpose, the captioned appeals have been posted for hearing. 2. In the above background, the Ld. Representative for the assessee referred to the order of the Tribunal dated 3/1/2014(supra), whereby in relation to the cross appeals for the assessment year 2002-03, the Ground of appeal Nos.6 &10 in the appeal of the assessee and Ground of appeal No.3 in the appeal of the Revenue were recalled for adjudication afresh. Notably, the cross-appeals for A.Y. 2002-03 i.e. ITA No.3289/Mum/06(Assessee's Appeal) and ITA No.3262/Mum/2006 (Revenue's appeal) are directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 08/03/2006, which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 80IB and S.80HHC was less that the profits of the new industrial undertaking . 10.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in excluding the deduction claimed u/s.80IA from computation of profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC without appreciating that the computation formula provided in S.80HHC without appreciating that the computation formula provided in S. 80HHC cannot be tinkered with by excluding the profits of the new industrial undertaking without adjusting the other figures namely export turnover, total turnover, etc. 10.3 without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have excluded only the deduction u/s.80HHC computed in respect of the exports from the new industrial undertaking considering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised before us, relates to the manner of computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal in its order dated 27/10/2010(supra) held that the controversy was liable to be decided in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalparu Colors & Chemicals, 192 Taxman 435(Bom), and, therefore, remanded the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with such directions. 5.2 Presently, the contention of the assessee is that the issue is now liable to be decided in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT, 342 ITR 49(SC), wherein the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, after reducing the amount of deduction allowed under section 80IA/80IB of the Act in view of the provisions of section 80IA(9)/80IB(13) of the Act. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,119 ITD 107(Del) (SB) decided the issue against the assessee in principle. However, the matter was set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of computing the deduction on unit basis because if exports were made from the non-eligible unit where no deduction was claimed u/s.80IB of the Act, then restri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ives for deduction u/s. 80HHC. 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the profit on sale of DEPB as export incentive for deduction u/s. 80HHC relying on the recent amendment in section 80 HHC by virtue of the Taxation Laws amendment Act, 2005. 6.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amendment of s.80HHC by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 is grossly arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principle of natural justice or equity. 6.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that under the newly amended provisions of s.28(iii) read with s.80HHC it is only the profit on the transfer of DEPB Scheme which is covered by the amended section 80HHC and that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the cross-appeals for A.Y 2003-04 also. 8. Next, we may take-up the appeal for assessment year 2001-02 vide ITA No.3945/Mum/2005/M/2005 directed against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Mumbai dated 28/03/2005, which in turn has arisen from the order of Assessing Officer dated 27/02/2004, passed under section 143(3) of the Act. This appeal has been listed as per the order of the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application dated 3/1/2014(supra) to adjudicate the following Grounds:- "2. Re: Export incentives eligible u/s. 28(iii)(a)(b),(c) not considered for working out deduction u/s. 80HHC. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deciding on the ground of eligibility of DEPB sold and received, DFRC benefits and Advance Licence benefits as E....