The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Ahuja Radios
2008 Latest Caselaw 1851 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 20.10.2008


+             ITA 529/2007

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX DELHI-X                                              ...   Appellant

                                   - versus -


M/S AHUJA RADIOS                                           ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mrs Prem Lata Bansal. For the Respondent : Mr B.B. Ahuja Sr Advocate with Mr D.K. Verma and Mr H.K. Sud.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") is directed against the

order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in

respect of assessment year 2001-02. In this appeal, although no formal

question had been framed, it had been tagged along with I.T.A. Nos.

337/2002, 1054/2006, 1127/2006 and 289/2007. The question

proposed in the present appeal is the one that had been framed for

consideration of this Court in those appeals which also pertain to the

same assessee but which relate to different assessment years. The issue

is as to whether modvat credit is to be included in the total turnover for

the purposes of computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC

of the said Act. By virtue of a separate judgment in respect of the said

four connected appeals delivered today itself, we have held that modvat

credit is not to be included in the total turnover for the purposes of

computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the said

Act. In the present case the Tribunal has also arrived at this

conclusion.

2. Consequently, in view of our decision in the connected four

appeals, the present appeal is also dismissed. The parties shall bear

their own costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER), J October 20, 2008 J