9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (1) TMI 74 - HC - Income TaxExport - Assessee claimed for deduction on the ground that transfer of right to exhibit films amount to sale of goods or merchandise for purpose of Section 80HHC of the ITA,1961 but AO can t agree with the assessee view -HC allowed deduction to assessee
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80HHC for deduction on export of film prints. 2. Eligibility criteria for benefit under Section 80HHC for transactions involving exploitation rights. Analysis: The High Court of Madras addressed tax case appeals against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding deduction claims under Section 80HHC for exporting film prints. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the transfer of rights to exhibit films should not qualify as a sale of goods for deduction purposes under Section 80HHC. The Court considered whether transactions involving exploitation rights conducted in India could be eligible for Section 80HHC benefits solely based on receiving consideration in foreign exchange. The Revenue acknowledged that the issues raised were unfavorably settled by a previous decision of the Court in CIT v. V.C. Kuganathan, citing the decision date and case numbers. The Court referenced the Bombay High Court's stance in Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala Vs. Dy. CIT and the Supreme Court's ruling in Tata Consultancy Services Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh to support its interpretation of the term "goods." It concluded that exporting the right for film exhibition constitutes a sale of goods or merchandise, aligning with the conditions of Section 80HHC and entitling the assessee to the deduction. The Court dismissed the tax case appeals, emphasizing the settled legal proposition derived from previous judgments. It highlighted the alignment of its decision with the interpretations of other courts and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeals were rejected, and no costs were awarded. Additionally, a related miscellaneous petition was also dismissed in light of the main judgment.
|
