9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction available to the assessee under section 8OHHC in the light of DEPB is to be recomputed by the assessing authority as decided Topman Exports vs. CIT [2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - The assessee is entitled for the benefit to the extent explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court – the matter is remitted back to the AO for re-computation quantum of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act – Decided in favour ofAssessee. - ITA Nos.450 to 454(Mds)/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2013 - Dr. O. K. Narayanan And Shri S. S. Godara,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Swaminathan, C.A. For the Respondent : Dr. S. Moharana, IRS, CIT ORDER Per Dr. O. K. Narayanan, Vice-President These appeals are filed by the assessee. The relevant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, 328 ITR 451 and held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80HHC on the amount received on such DEPB licence. The Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) confirmed the rectification orders passed by the assessing authority and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. 4. It is against the above that the assessee has come in second appeals before us. 5. There is a delay of 432 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit before the Tribunal alongwith petition for condonation of the delay caused in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. 6. The detailed reasons stated by the assesseecompany for causing the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, it advised the Petitioner that no appeal against the said order need be filed before the Hon ble Tribunal. 4. Accepting the said advice of the tax consultants, the Petitioner Company did not file any appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals)-III dated 26-10-2010. 5. The issue involved in the appeal namely, the relief under section 80HHC of the Act in respect of export incentives has now been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India by its order dated 8th February 2012 wherein the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals reported in 328 ITR 451 has been reversed and the decision of the Special bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court on the subject and declared the law on the subject in their judgment rendered by their Lordships in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT, 342 ITR 49. Once again the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Without any further delay, the assessee has filed appeals before the Tribunal. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that it is only just and proper to condone the delay caused in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the delay in filing these appeals before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeals are admitted on the rolls of the Tribunal for hearing and disposal. 9. It is the argument raised by the assessee that the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
