TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.61/CHD/2010 for the assessment year 2001-02 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in not hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deducting the face value of DEPB from its sale price for calculating profit under Sections 28 (iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as if the face value is the cost incurred by the assessee to acquire the DEPB? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was rightly excluded while working "Profits of the Business" as per explanation (baa) to section 80 HHC read with clause (iiid) and (iiie) of section28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 2005" (viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in not holding that the whole amount of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on DEPB against the Department, has been reversed by the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals in ITA (Lodg.) No.2887 of 2009 dated 28/29 June 2010 holding that it is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into "face value" for section 80 HHC r.w.s. 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act. Further held that since the assessee had an export turnover ....