9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. DR ORDER Per Bench: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 25.03.2008, 24.03.2008 25.08.2008 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2004-05 2002-03 respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 574/Del/2008. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on transfer of DEPB is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the issue is covered vide order dated 11.10.2013 in ITA Nos. 3527 3608/Del/2008 for the assessment years 2000-01 2004-05 respectively in the case of M/s Groz Net Industries, New Delhi Vs ACIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). 5. In her rival submissions the ld. Sr. DR although supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice under sec. 148 upon the assessee and passed the reassessment order on 20.12.2007 whereby he has restricted the deduction under sec. 80- HHC at ₹ 370,41,649 as against ₹ 446,04,969 computed by the assessee. This computation of the Assessing Officer has been upheld in the appeal as well as by the ITAT. The assessee filed miscellaneous application and contended that while deciding its appeal, the ITAT has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colors Chemicals reported in 328 ITR 451. By way of this judgment, Hon'ble High Court has reversed the Order of the ITAT s Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports reported in 318 ITR(AT) 87. The assessee pointed out that H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e through the record carefully. After looking to the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to take note the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court on this issue: A.K. SIKRI, C.J. (Oral): In all these petitions, insertion of conditions in the third and forth proviso to Section 80 HHC(3) of the Act by amendment of Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect have been challenged. It is a matter of record that similar writ petitions were filed in various High Courts. Transfer petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had directed transfer of all those writ petitions to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court of Gujarat vide judgment dated July 02, 2012 decided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and judgment of the Gujarat High Court. No order as to costs. All the writ petitions are disposed of in a similar manner, in same terms . 6. Hon'ble High Court has considered the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports Ors. Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 391 dated 2nd July 2012 and observed that Taxation Laws(Amendment) Act, 2005 would not be applicable retrospectively. Learned Assessing Officer has recomputed the deduction admissible to the assessee after applying the amended provisions of sec. 80-HHC of the Act. Therefore, we allow the appeals of assessee on this issue and remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for recomputing the deduction admissible under sec. 80-HHC by kee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
