9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 334 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80HHC - export of marble blocks which were not polished - Held that - As decided in Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd case 2013 (6) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT the assessee-respondents are eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act for export of marble blocks, which were cut and polished. This findings are, indisputably, binding on, this court in view of the law laid down in the case of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT 2008 (4) TMI 5 - Supreme Court - in favour of the assessee.
Issues:
Admissibility of deduction under Section 80HHC on export of marble blocks. Analysis: The High Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the point in question had already been decided against the revenue in a previous case involving similar circumstances. The appeal was admitted based on a substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of marble blocks. The Court noted that the issue had been previously settled in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Arihant Tiles & Minerals (P) Ltd. The findings of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee were considered binding, and it was concluded that the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of cut and polished marble blocks was justified. The Court also addressed the legal effect of Circular No. 693 dated 17th November 1994, stating that it did not adversely affect the claims of the assessee, who were entitled to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80HHC. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court emphasized that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under Section 80HHC were correct and not perverse. The judgment highlighted that the Circular No. 693 did not impact the claims of the assessee and that they were entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Court affirmed that the appeals of the revenue were liable to be dismissed based on the established facts and legal precedents. As a result, the present appeal was also dismissed for the same reasons as the previous case involving similar issues. The substantial question of law framed in the appeal was decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs being issued.
|
