Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2012) 08 SC CK 0022

Commissioner of Income Tax, City-II vs Star India (P.) Ltd.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 29 August 2012 · Citation: (2012) 254 CTR 335 : (2012) 210 TAXMAN 575

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.H. Kapadia, C.J. · Madan B. Lokur, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Transferred Case (Civil) No. 118 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 350 words
1.

Heard Learned Counsel on both sides. The transferred case is disposed of as withdrawn.

2.

Heard Learned Counsel on both sides.

3.

The question which requires to be answered in this case is as follows:

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Department to reduce 90% of the net commission received by the Assessee from the profits of the business for computation of deduction u/s 80HHF of the income tax Act, 1961?

At the relevant time, a group of matters on the interpretation of Section 80HHC of the income tax Act, 1961, was pending in this Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, as well as in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai, Later on, Topman Exports (supra), and M/s. ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. (supra), were decided on 8th February, 2012. One of the points which the Department raised was that the provisions of Section 80HHF of the Act may not be identical to the provisions of Section 80HHC of the Act. Consequently, this case was de-tagged.

4.

Under the above circumstances, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-assessee seeks permission to withdraw this transferred case so that the High Court can answer the above question on the interpretation of Section 80HHF of the Act in accordance with law.

5.

According to Learned Counsel for the Assessee, there is no difference between the provisions of Section 80HHC and Section 80HHF of the Act, whereas, according to Learned Counsel for the Department, there is a difference between these two sections and their respective applicability.

6.

Under the above circumstances, we request the High Court to decide the above question in accordance with law expeditiously, if possible, within a period of three months from today. The High Court may also consider in that light the judgment of this Court in M/s. ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd (supra). The transferred case is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn.