9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover only and not from the total turnover, while allowing the deduction u/s. 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short"]. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 disclosing an income of Rs. 5,83,59,970, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee deducted the freight charges amounting to Rs. 1,59,23,709 attributable to the delivery of goods outside India from the export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing the exemption allowable u/s. 10B of the Act. The AO, however, while allowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everal examples in which case, T.T. is always more than E.T + D.T To cite a simple example - suppose a 100% EOU manufactures readymade garments and exports the same to Nepal and receives a part of the sale proceeds there in Indian Rupee. The part of sale proceeds received in Rupee is not E.T. because it has not been received in CFE. The sale proceeds is not D.T. because the sale has been effected and the same has been received outside India. But such receipt is definitely a part and parcel of T.T. But such receipt is definitely a part and parcel of T.T. Besides, in that case, I have elaborated that Section 80-HHC and 80HHE of the Act in one hand and Section 10B of the Act are not pari materia and therefore the definition of Total T.O. given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry outset stated that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 30.08.2011 in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. in ITA No.70 of 2009 & Ors. which has later been followed in the judgment dated 24.10.2011 in ITA No.19/2009 in the case of M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Ltd. 6. The ld. DR in his rival submissions although supported the order of the authorities below, but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material available on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide India should not be included. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with the law declared by this Court. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 8. From the above, it is clear that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment dated 24.10.2011 of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case of M/s. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 19 of 2009. We therefore set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 11th day of June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
