Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (Haryana) Versus M/s Carpet India, Panipat (Haryana) (SC) [27-04-2018]
The Supreme Court referred the issue regarding deduction of export incentives by the supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC of the IT Act to a Larger Bench after referring the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Karnal vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta and Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvantanpuram vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC).
The Supporting Manufacturers are claiming at par treatment with director Exports in the matter of deduction as per Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
The question raised before the Supreme Court is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc., is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act at par with the direct exporter?
Since the matter involves huge monetary claims on either sides, for proper interpretation, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench for consideration by framing the following issue.
“Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
Read the Judgment here 80 HHC Income Tax Act
More Stories
The Apex Court on the Validity of Last Seen Theory and Forensic Evidence in Criminal Convictions
The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to apply the principle of Liberal Construction in interpreting the terms of the Contract- SC Ruled
The Court is not bound to follow statute or rules of evidence while deciding the custody of a Child and the only consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child- Supreme Court Reiterated