IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 788-787 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19947-48 of 2012) |Milton Laminates Ltd. |.. APPELLANT | Versus |The Commissioner of Income Tax-II |.. RESPONDENTS | ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for Revenue submits that in view of decision of this Court in Topman Exports vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC), this Civil Appeals deserves to be allowed and matter needs to be sent back to Assessing Officer. 3. In Topman Exports (supra) this Court observed as under:- "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...." 4. For same reasons, impugned judgment and order passed by 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 Exports (supra). 5. Civil Appeals are allowed, accordingly. No order as to costs. ....................J. [ H.L. DATTU ] ....................J. [ S.A. BOBDE ] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 20, 2014. ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.19947-19948/2012 (From judgement and order dated 16/11/2011 in TA No.1788/2010,TA No.1789/2010 of HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD) MILTON LAMINATES LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Respondent(s) Date: 20/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Anshul Gupta, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Kaushik, Adv. Mr. P.S.Sudheer,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim Qadri, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. appeals are disposed of in terms of signed order. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] | |Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar | [ Signed order is placed on file ] ----------------------- 3 Milton Laminates Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-II