9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gatived by the Assessing Officer and later by the CIT(A). The assessee is on further appeal. 3. In view of the insertion of cl. (iiib) to s. 28 w.e.f. 1st April, 1967 there is no merit in the appeals of the assessee. 4. The Revenue in its appeals is aggrieved against the deduction allowed under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961. In both the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89, a major portion of the assessee's exports were routed through the export houses and the Assessing Officer did not grant deduction under s. 80HHC as in his view the assessee was not entitled to receive the export proceeds in foreign exchange in relation to such exports. While taking this view, it would appear that the Assessing Officer relied on a communication received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further certificate to the effect that the collection in respect of such foreign bills purchased by the bank from the assessee has been directly credited to their bills purchase account. The assessee has also produced sample of invoices. It is seen that it is the assessee who has invoiced the goods against the foreign buyers and had shipped the same. The invoice which is made out in the name of the assessee also mentions the name of the export house account. But such bills, as has been indicated earlier, were all encashed by the assessee through its banker and the sale proceeds were directly credited to the assessee's account as mentioned before. The genuineness of the papers produced before us are not doubted or disputed by the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee is entitled to the deduction under s. 80HHC as the real exporter and recipient of the foreign exchange on such exports. Thus, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. The second issue in the appeals of the Revenue is whether the investment subsidy received by the assessee will go to reduce the cost of the assets for purpose of computation of depreciation etc. In the light of the following decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we decide the issue against the Revenue: CIT vs. Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(1990) 184 ITR 424 (Ker); CIT vs. Relish Foods (1989) 78 CTR (Ker) 197 : (1989) 180 ITR 454 (Ker); and CIT vs. Veneers and Laminations (India) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 145 (Ker). 8. In the result, the assessee's ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
