IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4148 OF 2012 MADHUR INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 4158 of 2012 Civil Appeal NO. 4198 of 2012 ORDER Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General for Revenue, fairly submits that in view of decision of this Court in Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax1, these Civil Appeals deserve to be allowed and matters need to be sent back to Assessing Officer. 2. In Topman Exports1 this Court concluded as follows :- "The aforesaid discussion would show that where assessee has export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and has made profits on transfer of DEPB under clause (d) of Section 28, he would not get benefit of addition to export profits under third or fourth proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80HHC, but he would get benefit of exclusion of smaller figure from "profits of business" under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of Act and there is nothing in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC to show that this benefit of exclusion of smaller figure from "profits of business" will not be available to assessee having export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores. In other words, where export turnover of assessee exceeds Rs.10 crores, he does not get benefit of addition of ninety per cent of export incentive under clause (iiid) of Section 28 to his export profits, but he gets higher figure of profits of business, which ultimately results in computation of bigger export profit. High Court, therefore, was not right in coming to conclusion that as assessee did have export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and as assessee did not fulfill conditions set out in third proviso to Section 80HHC (iii), assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC on amount received on transfer of DEPB and with view to get over this difficulty assessee was contending that profits on transfer of DEPB under Section 28 (iiid) would not include face value of DEPB. It is well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of taxing statute that subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to strict language of taxing statute and if as per words used in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC read with words used in clauses (iiid) and (iiie) of Section 28, assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC on export profits, benefit of such deduction cannot be denied to assessee. impugned judgment and orders of Bombay High Court are accordingly set-aside. appeals are allowed to extent indicated in this judgment. Assessing Officer is directed to compute deduction under Section 80HHC in case of appellants in accordance with this judgment...." 3. For same reasons, impugned judgment and order of Gujarat High Court is set aside and Assessing Officer is directed to compute deduction under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 in light of observations made by this Court in Topman Exports1 as noted above. 4. Civil Appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs. .........................J. ( R.M. LODHA ) NEW DELHI; .........................J. MAY 8, 2013 ( KURIAN JOSEPH ) ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4148 OF 2012 MADHUR INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -II Respondent(s) (With office report ) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 4158 of 2012 (With office report) Civil Appeal NO. 4198 of 2012 (With office report) Civil Appeal NO. 4551 of 2012 (With office report) Date: 08/05/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Appellant(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. P.S.Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Bhasker, Adv. Mr. Abu John Mathew, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, A.S.G. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Civil Appeal No. 4148 of 2012l; Civil Appeal No. 4158 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 4198 of 2012 Civil Appeals are allowed in terms of signed order. Civil Appeal No. 4551 of 2012 As regards this Appeal, Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General, submits that since no vakalatnama and counter affidavit have been filed, he is not in position to say whether this matter is identical to Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) and other three Appeals being Civil Appeal No. 4148 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 4158 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 4198 of 2012 which have been disposed of by us today. This Appeal is, accordingly, de-tagged. Vakalatnama and counter affidavit may be filed by respondent within eight weeks. List matter thereafter. |(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) | |Court Master | |Court Master | (signed order in Civil Appeal No. 4148 of 2012l; Civil Appeal NO. 4158 of 2012 and Civil Appeal NO. 4198 of 2012 is placed on file) 1 [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) Madhur Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax -II