9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, inter alia, provided to the manufacturers to enable them to produce the exportable engineering goods at cheaper rates, which would make them competitive in the international market. As these efforts were proving inadequate, the Indian rupee was devalued on6-6-1966. This had the effect of making Indian goods cheaper in the international market, thereby making them more competitive. As a supplementary measure and, with a view to make the export of goods, particularly engineering goods more viable, the Government announced a scheme of giving cash assistance to the exporters of the specified engineering goods. The details of the scheme were communicated by the Ministry of Commerce in a letter dated17-8-1966, addressed to the Engineering Export Promotion Council, the contents of which, inter alia, were as follows : "1. (i) The Government of India have decided to grant cash assistance against exports, effected from6-6-1966of specified engineering products. A list of products eligible for such assistance with the percentage of assistance is annexed. There will be no concessional supply of iron and steel in addition..." Sub-para (ii) of para 1 of the above letter excluded certain i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rates. 3.4 The operation of the above schemes has been reviewed from time to time to bring them in tune with the developing trading conditions in the country and abroad. The last such review was done by Dr. Alexander Committee in 1977-78, when it examined, inter alia, the role of instruments such as Cash Compensatory Support (CCS), duty drawbacks, etc., in the promotion ofIndia's export effort. The object of the review was that "the existing pattern of CCS on exports should be restructured keeping in view the changes that have been brought about in the Import Export Policy and procedures, the present level of competitiveness attained by export products and the long term potential of products in such a manner that they can sustain themselves in the export market on their own after some initial period of assistance". Dr. Alexander Committee identified the following three basic principles for determining CCS : "(a) The level of CCS should fully compensate for the various types of indirect taxes, sales tax, etc., which the exporter has to pay on his inputs imported or domestically purchased and which are not refunded. This will enable him to be on par with foreign competitors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... variety of inherent handicaps, which adversely affect their competitiveness. Apart from the cumulative burden of various indirect taxes and levies, which are not refunded through the mechanism of duty drawbacks, there are also serious handicaps on account of factors like higher rates of interest payable inIndiaon working capital employed in export production and the duty burden on capital goods used for export production. Also, it has been observed that the freight rates from Indian ports to destinations inEuropeand other places are higher than those fromHong Kong,Taiwan, etc., to the same destinations. Thus, there is inherent freight disadvantage which makes our exports relatively uncompetitive. It is with a view to neutralising at least in part the effect of these various handicaps and consistent with the competitive and developmental needs of our exports that the scheme of Cash Compensatory Support to exports has been devised." 4.1 The CCS is only one of the export promotion measures adopted by the Government of India and to have a comprehensive view of the problems it would be appropriate to note the multipronged approach of the Government in this regard for all these measur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per rate of interest to exporters, the Government announced in June1968 ascheme called Export Credit (Interest Subsidy) Scheme, 1968 for grant of subsidy towards interest charges on export finance provided by banks. For this purpose the Reserve Bank prescribes a ceiling on interest charges qualifying under the scheme. The ceiling rate of interest is fixed by the Reserve Bank ofIndia, from time to time. The existing rate is 11 1/2 per cent on pre-shipment credit and post-shipment credit and 8 per cent on exports on deferred payment terms. The Government pays a subsidy of 1.5 per cent on such export credits to the financing banks. The types of credits available under the scheme to the exporters are : (i) Packing credit or pre-shipment credit. (ii) Post-shipment credit. 5. Inaddition to the above, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, devised a special Export Promotion Scheme for engineering goods. Clause (5) of the said scheme provided, inter alia, as below : "The benefits which may be granted to a registered exporter under the scheme will consist of : (a) Import entitlements---Against exports of the products, mentioned in Annexure V, a registered exporter will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regarded as a supplementary trading receipt. 7.2 The next point made out by the assessee's learned counsel was that every receipt was not income, more particularly when it partook of the nature of bounty or gift. It was for the revenue to show that a receipt, which was prima facie a bounty, was nevertheless taxable being a supplementary trading receipt. Such a burden has not been discharged in the present case. Reference was made in this regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532. 7.3 (a) The purpose of the CCS, according to the learned counsel, was to encourage exports. It was a general purpose and payment made for a general purpose will not be supplementary trading receipt. It will be a non-trading receipt. To buttress this argument, reference was made by the learned counsel to the Export Policy Resolution of 1970 and the letter of the Government of India dated 23-10-1978 (referred to above) wherein the purpose of CCS is spelled out, inter alia, to be to sustain in the export market on their own. The CCS is paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India for the above general purpose. It has nothing to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue in the accounts of the company. During the period when construction was going on and instalments were received, there was no trading done by the company. (b) On the above facts, the question for determination was whether the grants received as above were revenue receipts. The General Commissioners were of the opinion that the grant was revenue. Rowlatt, J. of the Kings Bench Division affirmed the above opinion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the above finding and held, as per Lord Hanworth, M R., that 'the grant was made by a Government body and was capital', that this sum was a sum paid out and out by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the purpose of adding to and completing the capital sum of which there was an insufficient subscription before it was received, and that 'they were paid in order to advance a capital expenditure to be made by the Seaham Harbour Dock Company, and they cannot be brought within Case I of Schedule D, they cannot be said to be sums which were received in respect of trade and so taxable under Schedule A or Schedule D'. Sleasser, LJ. also expressed similar opinion and said that 'it is clear that the grant in question was a grant of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trading receipt even if the receipt was utilised in the business of the assessee and resulted in the acquisition of a trading asset. What governed the nature of the receipt was the purpose of the grant and not the mode of the utilization of the grant by the recipient. The above ratio clearly applied, according to the learned counsel, to the facts of the present case, for here the purpose of CCS was not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the assessee, or to reduce its losses, or to augment its profits, but 'to sustain exporters in the export market on their own', and 'expansion of export earnings' of the country as a whole. This was a specified purpose of a general nature and a grant given for this purpose will not become a trading receipt, even if it was used in the assessee's business and, ultimately, became part of the assessee's capital. 7.5 (a) The above case, pointed out the learned counsel, came to be considered by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Siddhartha Publications (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 129 ITR 603, and its ratio was applied by their Lordships to the facts of the said case, which, according to the learned counsel, has striking simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment, which could scrap the scheme of CCS on any day it liked. No services were rendered by the assessee to the Government to get the CCS. It was purely an act of grace on the part of the Government to pay it, it was a gift or donation, and, hence, not taxable. 7.6 Reference was also made by the learned counsel to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Handicrafts Handloom Export Corpn. [1982] 133 ITR590 insupport of the proposition that every receipt, even if it be in respect of business, say to wipe out losses or to meet certain expenses would not suo motu be of revenue nature. In that case, the assessee-company was a subsidiary company of the State Trading Corporation (STC) for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the assessee incurred losses, which were reimbursed by the STC. The question was, whether the reimbursement of losses could be treated as revenue receipts, having the effect of wiping out the losses incurred by the assessee. Their Lordships held that : "... This was clearly a case in which the assessee had incurred a trading loss and all that had happened was that the STC, having regard to its relation with the assessee, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, failed to perceive this fundamental difference in the character of CCS compared to that of import entitlements and duty drawbacks, which, according to the learned counsel, were backed up by statutory provisions contained in section 3. (b) Secondly, the Calcutta High Court was misled to believe that the language of the circular letter of the Government dated17-8-1966was the same as that of the letter dated24-8-1966, written by the Engineering Export Promotion Council to its members. In fact, there was glaring difference in the two. Whereas the Ministry's letter dated17-8-1966made no reference, whatsoever, to the purpose of the cash assistance being to meet any losses, suffered by the specified exporters on account of devaluation of the rupee, that gloss was put upon it by the Engineering Export Promotion Council in its letter dated24-8-1966. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court erred in proceeding on the footing of this gloss. If such gloss is removed, the cash assistance would be nothing but an outright grant or subsidy directed towards the national policy objectives of generating more foreign exchange resources and development of export markets and, hence, directly covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 47 of their order, the Hon'ble members have observed, inter alia, as follows : "... we are inclined to hold with great respect, that the ruling of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, reported in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 448, cannot be taken as binding authority for treating CCS receipts in the assessee's hands, as receipts of its export business liable to tax." According to our brothers : "It was not possible to conceive of the CCS receipts of the assessee's business or trade. There was no trading relationship as between the assessee and the Government who made the grant. There was no contract between the parties. There was not even a stipulation making it a condition of the grant that the assessee should carry on the business of export of its products. If, after having effected the export of its products, the assessee had decided to discontinue the business, the grant would still have been made on the exports already effected even though the business had come to an end....' It is urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that we should follow the above order of the 'D' Bench of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal and refuse to follow the Hon'ble Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of the payments made by the Government on the one hand and by the STC on the other. While it is true that the Government was reimbursing the assessee's loss, when the assessee was a branch of the Government, i.e., till 1962, the nature of the grants given by the Government during the years in question are totally different. It has been found by all the authorities and in particular by the Tribunal in both the appellate orders and in the statement of case that the amounts given by the Government were in the nature of grants-in-aid. In other words, they were not of the same nature as reimbursement made by the STC. They were amounts paid by the Government to the assessee which was carrying on an export business to promote its activities and the subsidies given by the Government to enable the assessee to carry on its export business more efficiently and satisfactorily were part of the trading receipts of the STC. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in refusing to equate the reimbursement given by the STC with the grants-in-aid given by the Government." The CCS was also, according to the learned departmental representative, in the nature of grants-in-aid g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eption. If the undertaker is a rating authority and the subsidy is the proceeds of rates imposed by it or comes from a fund belonging to the authority, the identity of the source with the recipient prevents any question of profits arising;..." According to the learned departmental representative, the case of the present assessee is squarely covered by the first proposition, referred to above, and the second proposition did not apply to it, as the assessee was not a rating authority. The subsidy received by it in the form of CCS was, therefore, a trading receipt. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court, extracted above in para 8.1 were, thus, based on high authority, and were, in any case, binding on us. 8.3 (a) Apart from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, other High Courts have also taken similar view. Thus, in the case of Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1958] 33 ITR 644, it was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, following the decision in Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board's case that the payment made by the Central Government to the assessee in the form of subsidy with the object of compensating the assessee for the loss of profits arising to it from being compe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urce of cash subsidy or allowance is export of goods. In our opinion, therefore, cash subsidy or allowance has to be taken into consideration in ascertaining profits from exports made by the assessee-company...." [Emphasis supplied] The learned departmental representative relied on the above observations in support of his case, stressing in particular the italicised portions. (d) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also expressed similar opinion regarding cash subsidy in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 951, where they observed as follows : "... For such subsidy or allowance it should be held that there was a direct connection with the exports effected and perhaps the case of the assessee that the amount of the subsidy or allowance be taken into consideration in ascertaining profits from the exports may be required to be accepted...." (e) The Hon'ble Madras High Court came to consider similar question in CIT v. Wheel Rim Co. of India Ltd. [1977] 107 ITR 168, namely, that cash subsidy received by the assessee was part of the profits and gains derived by the assessee by export of goods. Their Lordships held, inter alia, that the cash subsidy would necessaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of its recommendations, the Government by a resolution dated 22-2-1950 directed that the manufacturers of soda ash should be allowed a subsidy of Re. 1 per cwt. on soda ash produced by the companies mentioned above and sold from the date of the resolution provided the Government was satisfied that the companies actually sold the soda ash at the fair selling price recommended by Tariff Board. Rs. 2,03,902 were given to the assessee-company as subsidy as a result of the above resolution. The company claimed it as a non-trading receipt of casual nature. The above claim was not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, who pointed out that the sole object underlying the grant of the subsidy was to enable the assessee-company and the Tata Chemicals Ltd. to carry on their business in a commercial manner so that it would yield profit. It was well settled, their Lordships pointed out, that where subsidies or grants are given by the Government to assist a trader in his business, they are, generally speaking, payments of revenue nature. They are supplementary trade receipts and not capital payments. Such receipt, under the tests laid down by Viscount Simon in the case of Pontypridd and Rhondda J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CCS was paid to enable the assessee-company to carry on its export business more efficiently and profitably. (h) The ratio of all these decisions, according to the learned departmental representative, was that a subsidy given by the Government to an industrialist or a trader, in whatever form, would be a revenue receipt, if it was given to him for carrying on his business. It would be a non-trading receipt in case it was given for non-trading purpose, e.g., relief of unemployment as in the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Co. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has taken this view in an unequivocal manner in respect of CCS itself in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. In that case, the facts were absolutely identical to those in the present case. The reasoning of the assessee claiming exemption from tax for CCS was also the same as in the present case. Protection of Seaham Harbour Dock Co.'s case was solicited there also and it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the dominant purpose of the Government for grant of the amounts was promotion of exports. It was irrespective of the profit or loss and it was not given by the Government in order to meet any trading obligation, but, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Textiles Association, that the subsidy given by the Government was not taxable. The former was the case under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and the question there was whether a subsidy shall be taken into consideration for determining the profits of the company out of which bonus was liable to be paid to the workers. In view of the specific provision of the items which would go to the computation of payment of bonus, the Supreme Court held that subsidy was not to be included in the computation of profit for the purposes of the said Act. Their Lordships were not considering in the said case the nature of the subsidy from the point of view of its inclusion in the total income. They were considering it from the point of view of its inclusion in the allocable surplus for the purpose of distribution of bonus. The Payment of Bonus Act specifically provided that subsidy received from the Government will be excluded from the income of the concern for the purpose of determining allocable surplus. It was, therefore, totally erroneous to presume that the case of Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. No. 1 was an authority for the proposition that subsidy was not a trading receipt and would not, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orced in a court of law, was created in favour of the assessee and that this right flowed from section3. Inany case, a right of equity based on the principle of promissory estoppel was definitely created in favour of the assessee as soon as he exported engineering goods eligible for the grant of CCS and such a right was in no way inferior to the statutory right. Our attention was invited in this connection to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718, which is the leading authority for the above proposition. That case involved the consideration of an export scheme under which the respondents were entitled to get an import entitlement certificate equal to 100 per cent of the f.o.b. value of their exports. The Textile Commissioner refused to grant 100 per cent import entitlements without assigning any reason for his action. The Supreme Court, firstly, pointed out that the Export Promotion Scheme was made to further the purposes of the Act, and so was statutory in nature and the Textile Commissioner was bound to carry his obligations, under it. Presuming, however, that the scheme was executive in character, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on this illusory presumption, was unfounded. 9.4 The said decision pointed out by the learned departmental representative was not only correct but was based on good authority and was, therefore, binding on the Tribunal, particularly when there was not one judgment of any High Court to the contrary. If, at all, every High Court, before which similar problem had come, had taken identical stand, as is manifest from the various decisions referred to above. Even the Three Member Bench of the Calcutta Benches of the Tribunal had taken the above view by two to one majority, and it was confirmed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd.'s case. It was, therefore, urged that we should follow the aforementioned authorities. The order of Delhi Bench in the case of Gedore Tools (I.) (P.) Ltd. was opposed to all the above authorities and has been rendered under the impact of misrepresentations and need not, therefore, be followed, more particularly when it did not consider the numerous case laws, in particular Handicrafts Handloom Export Corpn.'s case of the Delhi High Court, referred to above, and was deprived of their guidance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght be kept in employment', it will not be a trading receipt. Similarly, a pure bounty or gift, which is not correlated with the carrying on of his business and does not come to him as something related with his business transactions, or with the business, as a whole, would be a non-trading receipt, given may be, as a gift, because of love and affection [as in the case of Handicrafts Handloom Export Corpn.] or as an act of philanthropy as in the case of Siddhartha Publications (P.) Ltd. But, when a payment is made by the Government as a subsidy to a business or industry qua his capacity as a businessman or industrialist, with a view to enable him to run his business, it would be a trade receipt, simpliciter. That is clearly the ratio of Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board's case reiterated very pointedly in Handicrafts Handloom Export Corpn.'s case, by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 10.2 It was with a view to distinguish a trade receipt from a non-trade receipt that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had evolved the principle in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd.'s case and noted earlier at para 7.7(a). It bears repetition in the interest of continuity and so we reproduce it here, once a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. or to induce him to start early crushing of sugarcane, as in the case of H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., or to export his goods and to enable him to run his export business more competitively in the international market and to hold his own there as in the cases of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad Mfg. Calico Printing Co. Ltd., Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Wheel Rim Co. of India Ltd., the receipts will be on revenue account. 10.4 Let us, therefore, examine the true nature of the CCS in the light of the above principles. The predecessor of CCS was, as noted earlier, cash subsidy, which was notified by the Central Government to the Export Promotion Council vide its letter dated 17-8-1966---see para 3.2. It was to be given as a certain percentage of f.o.b. value of the specified engineering goods exported from 6-6-1966 onwards, and there was to be 'no concessional supply of iron and steel' to those who got the cash subsidy as above. Such supply was being earlier given vide the Special Export Promotion Scheme, 1963. Cash subsidy was, thus, in lieu of the scheme of 'concessional supply of iron and steel'. The purpose of this scheme was to reimburse part of the assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows : "... These are schemes intended by the Government for the benefit of the country and, therefore, any person would be entitled to take advantage of that scheme and be entitled to subsidy or assistance promised by the Government..." [Emphasis supplied] Thus, the right to receive cash assistance in terms of the scheme of the Government announced by the letter dated17-8-1966, supra, was an enforceable legal right and could not be arbitrarily rejected by the Government. Its character is, therefore, far different from that of the sum given to Siddhartha Publications (P.) Ltd.'s case by worldwide partnership, for that was a payment not against an enforceable right but mere gratis and so could not be regarded as trade receipt. Similar was the position in the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Co. There too, the grant-in-aid was received by the company not by the exercise of a right to receive it, but because the unemployment grants committee pleased to give it. Both the above receipts were, therefore, non-trading receipts. But the same is not true of cash assistance, promised by the Government of India, in terms of its letter dated17-8-1966supra. One received cash assistance as a ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, exemption from sales tax on exports or provision of cheap credit and cheap insurance for exports, all aimed at reducing the costs. Competitiveness of Indian exports could be increased only in this manner. CCS also aimed at doing it. It was its professed purpose. For fixing its measure, whatever factors might be taken into account, they will not in law determine the nature of CCS. Its real nature is to be determined with reference to the purpose for which it is given, that the nature of cash assistance and CCS is the same was in unambiguous terms explained by the Government in its letter dated 23-1-1976 referred to in para 3.6 supra. The CCS, thus, clearly aimed at subsidizing the cost of production, and to wipe out or reduce the export losses or increase export profits by keeping cost of production low. In this regard, its nature was the same as that of the cash subsidy given by the Government to offset the increase in cost of production due to increase in wages in the case of Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. or to offset losses caused due to the Government directive to begin the sugarcane crushing season early in the case of H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. 10.6 That this was the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd.'s case, is also identical and there is, therefore, no reason for us not to follow the above decisions. 10.8 Not one judgment has been shown to us, which might have taken a contrary view. Referring to Ahmedabad Mfg. Calico Printing Co. Ltd.'s case and Wheel Rim Co. of India Ltd.'s case, the learned counsel for the assessee had, however, urged that the above cases started with the concession that the cash compensatory support was income derived from export business and, therefore, their Lordships' observations would not decide the controversy whether the CCS was or was not a trading receipt. The above submission, though plausible, does not appear to us to be entirely correct. The question for determination before their Lordships was, whether cash subsidy and profit made on account of import entitlement were 'profits and gains derived from the export of goods'. While answering this question, their Lordships held that whereas profits attributable to import entitlements would not be profits and gains, derived from the foreign business as the connection between such profits and foreign trade was only mediate and not immediate. "So far as cash sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, which is named, and it has nothing to do with their trade... It appears to me, with respect, to be quite irrelevant whether the money when received, is applied for capital purposes or is applied for revenue purposes..." [Emphasis supplied] 10.9 (b) Thus, the finding of the House of Lords, was that the grant was not a trade receipt, and since it was not a trade receipt, it was irrelevant to enquire as to how it was utilized. If it were a trade receipt, the question, whether receipt is on capital account or revenue account would become relevant and it is here that the finding of the Court of Appeals becomes relevant, namely, that the grant was to meet the cost of construction and, hence, of capital nature. On either reasoning, the receipt was not taxable in that case. What is the position in the present case? The receipt is, as noted earlier, in the course of business and for the purpose of business and backed by an enforceable right to receive it. It is, therefore, a trading receipt. Is it on capital account as would be the position on the facts of the case of Seaham Harbour Dock Co.? Again, the answer is, no. The assessee exports specified engineering goods and with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngal Textiles Association's case cannot be read as laying down the proposition that subsidies received from the Government by way of CCS were not trading receipts. The criticism of the learned counsel as based entirely on illusory grounds and erroneous perceptions and has to be categorically rejected. We entirely endorse in this respect the reasoning of the revenue as recorded in para 9.1 supra. We, accordingly, reject it. The decision of their Lordships, as we have noted above, was based on ample authority and sound logic and we are duty bound to follow it. 12.1 Before we close, we may refer to the request of the learned counsel for the assessee to refer the present appeal for the adjudication of a Special Bench of the Tribunal, in case we were not inclined to follow the order of the Division Bench, Tribunal, Delhi, relied upon by the assessee and referred to in para 7.7(e) supra. We do not find it possible to accept the above request for two reasons as below : (i) As noted earlier, not one judgment of any High Court has been brought to our attention, which might have taken a view contrary to that taken by us above. On the contrary, the learned departmental representative, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
