9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only 90% of the net commission and not the gross commission receipts has to be deducted while arriving at the "profits of business" in terms of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC?" 2. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 1.11.2011, the appellant has taken steps to serve the respondent/assessee through the Department and it is seen that the respondent/assessee has in fact been served on 23.11.2011 and proof of service has also been filed. Inspite of the name of the assessee having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee/respondent. Therefore, we proceed to decide the issue on merits. 3. The issue involved is as to whether wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edo the exercise. It was as against the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue has preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by following the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' (Special Bench) in Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 89 ITD 25 (DELHI)(SB), has held that only 90% of the net commission has to be reduced from the profit of the business for determining deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. 7. On a reference to the said decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which has been followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is clear that the Special Bench has dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ME TAX V. SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIP (2007) 289 ITR 475 (DELHI) has taken a different view and that came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DEVARAJ NENSEE AND CO, (2010) 322 ITR 430(MAD), in which, this Court has reiterated the earlier decision in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. V.CHINNAPANDI (2006) 282 ITR 389 (MAD), which is as follows: "10. The Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (2007) 289 ITR 475 has considered the two decisions of this Court and also the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment relied on by this Court in Chinnapandi's case (2006)282 ITR 389(Mad) and ultimately taken a view after taking an analogy from the then existing provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
