IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4632 OF 2012 JAY CHEMCIAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS C.I.T-II Respondent(s) ORDER Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned counsel for Revenue, fairly submits that in view of theac decision of this Court in Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax1, this Civil Appeal deserves to be allowed and matter needs 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 Appeal is allowed as above with no order as to costs. .........................J. ( R.M. LODHA ) NEW DELHI; .........................J. AUGUST 5, 2013 ( MADAN B. LOKUR ) ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4632 OF 2012 JAY CHEMCIAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS C.I.T-II Respondent(s) (With office report ) Date: 05/08/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Appellant(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Mr. P.S.Sudheer,Adv. Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Abu John Mathew, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Bhaskar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Sinha, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Civil Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of signed order. |(Rajesh Dham) | |(Renu Diwan) | |Court Master | |Court Master | (signed order is placed on file) 1 [2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) Jay Chemcial Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T-II