IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5517 OF 2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35433 of 2012) M/S HARNAM SYNTEX P.LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS C.I.T-3 Respondent(s) ORDER Delay is condoned in filing special leave petition. 2. Leave granted. 3. Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that controversy raised in present matter is squarely covered by decision of this Court in Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax1. 4. 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 1. (2012) 3 SCC 593 2 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 3 deduction under Section 80HHC in case of appellants in accordance with this judgment...." 5. Impugned order is set aside and Assessing Officer is directed to compute deduction under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of appellant in accordance with observations made by this Court in Topman Exports1 as noted above. 6. Civil Appeal is disposed of as above with no order as to costs. ..........................CJI. ( R.M. LODHA ) ............................J. ( MADAN B. LOKUR ) NEW DELHI; ............................J. MAY 7, 2014 ( KURIAN JOSEPH ) 4 ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).35433/2012 (From judgement and order dated 25/10/2010 in ITA No.3444/2010 of HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) M/S HARNAM SYNTEX P.LTD,. Petitioner(s) VERSUS C.I.T-3 Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report )) Date: 07/05/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Reena Singh, Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Delay is condoned in filing special leave petition. Leave granted. Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of signed order. (Rajesh Dham) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court Master (signed order is placed on file) 5 M/s. Harnam Syntex P. Ltd. v. C.I.T.-3