If a deduction under s 80-IA has been taken, a deduction under s 80HHC is not admissible, as held by PHHC in Gupta International v CIT, Karnal — In favour of: The revenue; ITA No 174 of 2011.
Gupta International v CIT, Karnal
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
ITA No. 174 of 2011
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ and Ajay Kumar Mittal
Decided on: 20 July 2011
Counsel appeared:
Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ.
This order will dispose of ITA Nos.174 and 175 of 2011 as both the appeals involve
common questions of law.
2. ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA
No.2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following
substantial questions of law:-
“a) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section
80HHC read with section 80-IA(9) read with section 80-IB(13) the Tribunal has
erred in restricting the claim of deductions under the Act?
b) Whether the provisions of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 by
bringing third and fourth proviso to section 80HHC retrospectively are
unconstitutional and against Article 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution and needs
to be quashed?
c) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 148
the same are applicable in a case where a substantive provision has been
brought in the statute retrospectively?
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee fairly states that matter is covered against
the assessee by order of this Court dated 18.4.2011 in ITA No.469 of 2010, Asin Exim
International v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, Punjab wherein it was held
that if deduction under section 80-IA has been taken, deduction under section 80HHC
was not admissible in view of section 80-IB(13) read with section 80-IA(9) of the Act,
following earlier judgment of this Court in Friends Castings (P) Limited v. Commissioner
of Income Tax, (2011) 50 DTR Judgments 61.
4. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment