9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to exclude the sales tax refund while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act - no mistake in the order of the Tribunal in terms of section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly the Misc. Petition filed by the Revenue is rejected - in favour of assessee. - M.A. No. 555/Mum/2011 & ITA No. 4350/Mum/2009 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH JJ. Applicant by : Shri C.G.K. Nair Respondent by : Ms. Vasanti B. Patel O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M. This Misc. Petition dated Nil filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dtd. 10-8-2011 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4350/Mum/2009 for the A.Y. 2003-04. 2. In the Misc. Petition it was inter alia stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of hearing of the appeal did not refer/rely on the judgment in the case of Dresser Rand India (P) Ltd. (supra) which is dtd. 8-4-2010 i.e. much prior to the date of hearing of the present appeal which was heard on 4-8-2011. She further submits that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 62 (Bom) while observing that the case of Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. proceeded on a concession by counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, therefore, not concluded the issue, has held that the claim on account of insurance for stock-in-trade did not constitute a receipt of a similar nature within the meaning of Explanation (baa) and was, therefore, not liable to be reduced to the extent of nin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Bombay High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court which is reported in 295 ITR 451(SC). 6.2 We respectfully follow the said judgment of the Bombay High Court and in the light of that we direct the Assessing Officer not to exclude the sales tax refund while calculating the deduction u/s 80 HHC. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal and the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra) direct the AO not to exclude the sales tax refund while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. However, in the absence of any arguments or supporting material in respect of miscellaneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction under section 80HHC of the Incometax Act, 1961 ?" This court by its decision held that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair [2007] 295 ITR 228 the issue of processing charges would stand covered by the decision. This court noted that the Supreme Court had held that the processing charges, though they form a part of the gross total income, constitute independent income like rent, commission and brokerage and that hence 90 per cent. of the same had to be reduced from the gross total income to arrive at business profits. The concluding paragraph of the judgment of this court records the concession of counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the discussion in respect of the issue in reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
