TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner is engaged in the business of import and local purchase of yarn and export and local sales of yarn and fabrics produced on local power looms. The promoters of the company acquired controlling interest in another company known as M/s.H.C.Pharma (P) Ltd., which name was subsequently changed to M/s.Mulberry Silk International (P) Ltd. ('MSIL' in short) in 1994, with the intention of setting up an independent sophisticated fabric weaving unit. In January 1999, there was a consequential search in the premises of the petitioner and in the course of search, it was noticed that there was stock deficit of imported yarn to the extent of Rs. 2,22,41,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction under Section 80HHC. 2.Challenging the proceedings dated 30.03.2005 of the Settlement Commission, by which the petitioner's request for re-computing the deduction under Section 80HHC has been declined, the present writ petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Settlement Commission, having determined the total income from business including the income from the unaccounted sale of imported yarn which formed part of the petitioner's business, ought to have determined the relief under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Settlement Commission is a Body created under the Income-tax Act and hence it is bound by the provisions of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally different from the one offered much later, just prior to the completion of the block assessments. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has no satisfactory explanation for the contradictory stands taken at various stages and before the various authorities. Stating so, the learned standing counsel prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 6.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, has submitted that the significant cause of action of the present case, arises in the State of Karnataka and hence this Court should not entertain this writ petition. 7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the papers. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no valid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... jurisdiction if any directions are issued in respect of the cases which are not before it. 9.But, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case since the petitioner herein and the assessing authorities are at Bangalore and merely because the order under challenge had been passed by the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission, the cause of action cannot be said to arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission and the parties to such proceedings are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence it would not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition by this Court. 10.In this connecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Conveniens. 12.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of R.T.Industries v. Income-tax Settlement Commission, reported in [2018] 98 taxmann.com 236 (Delhi). Paragraph-45 of the said judgment, reads as under: "45.Lastly, we would like to deal with the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction. A five-Judges Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P.(C)No.6570 of 2010, dated 1-8-2011] has drawn a distinction between cause of action jurisdiction and doctrine of forum conveniens. It has been observed that if a miniscule part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of the Court, a writ petition would be maintainable....