{"id":749,"date":"2009-06-26T07:31:38","date_gmt":"2009-06-26T07:31:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=749"},"modified":"2009-06-26T07:31:38","modified_gmt":"2009-06-26T07:31:38","slug":"acit-vs-hindustan-mint-itat-5-member-special-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-hindustan-mint-itat-5-member-special-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint (ITAT 5 Member Special Bench)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=43\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=43&varname2=hindustan_mint_rogini_garments_80HHC_80IA.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (hindustan_mint_rogini_garments_80HHC_80IA.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>  s. 80-IA relief has to be deducted before computing s. 80-HHC relief<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/rogini_garments_80HH_80IA_special_bench.pdf\">ACIT Vs Rogini Garments <\/a><\/strong>108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u\/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee\u2019s business on which relief u\/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed.  Subsequently, the Madras High Court in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-scm-creations-vs-acit-madras-high-court\">SCM Creations <\/a><\/strong> 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether <strong>Rogini Garments <\/strong>was impliedly overruled was referred to a five Member Special Bench which upheld the correctness of <strong>Rogini Garments <\/strong>and held:<\/p>\n<p>(1) <strong>SCM Creations <\/strong>is not an authority on how s. 80-IA (9) is to be applied because the effect and implementation of above provision was neither raised, nor examined nor decided by the Court.  A decision is an authority for the proposition that it decides and not what can logically be deduced there from.  <strong>A point not raised nor argued at the Bar cannot be said to be the ratio of the decision<\/strong>. Accordingly <strong>SCM Creation<\/strong> does not impinge upon the ratio of Rogini Garments.<\/p>\n<p>(2) On merits, <strong>Rogini Garments <\/strong>was correctly decided and did not require reconsideration. The language of s. 80-IA (9)\/80-IB (9A) was clear and unambiguous and was required to be given effect to.  Deduction of profit and gains allowed u\/s 80-IA\/80-IB had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee\u2019s business on which deduction u\/s 80HHC had to be computed.<\/p>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>SCM Creations <\/strong>is not an authority on how s. 80-IA (9) is to be applied because the effect and implementation of above provision was neither raised, nor examined nor decided by the Court.  A decision is an authority for the proposition that it decides and not what can logically be deduced there from.  A point not raised nor argued at the Bar cannot be said to be the ratio of the decision. Accordingly <strong>SCM Creation<\/strong> does not impinge upon the ratio of Rogini Garments.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/acit-vs-hindustan-mint-itat-5-member-special-bench\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}