I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ..........Appellant Versus Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta, ..........Respondent Prop. M/s Aalishan Exports, 509-L, Model Town, Panipat. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The assessee claimed benefit under Section 80HHC in respect of income derived in the form of duty drawback, which was not allowed. The assessee challenged denial of benefit under Section 80HHC on the duty drawback. His plea has been upheld by the CIT(A) as well by the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 and judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Carpet India & Others (rendered in ITA No. 544 of 2007 decided on 13.1.2008). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The observations of the CIT(A) are as under:- “I have considered the submissions of the assessee and facts of the case. The facts and circumstances of the case are similar to the case of the assessee in A.Y. I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) (2) 2002-03. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions in Appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of the assessee and the decision has cited above in various cases by ITAT, Delhi. The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC as supporting manufacturer and exporter. Accordingly assessee is allowed deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount of Duty draw back, but no deduction is allowed u/s 80HHC on the amount of DEPB received by the assessee because the turnover of the assessee is more than Rs. 10 crores and the rate of DEPB is also more than the rate of Duty Draw Back, therefore, it does not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the proviso to sub- section 3 of Section 80HHC as introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 No. 55 of 2005- 06. In result, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” 4. The above observations have been affirmed by the Tribunal 5. The order of the Tribunal, being in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme and this Court, no substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 10, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No I.T.A. No. 520 of 2009 (O&M) (3)