9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asstt. Year 1995-96 and 1996-97 – Decided against the Revenue. - ITA No. 3309/Del/2003 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2013 - Shri R. P. Tolani And Shri Shamim Yahya,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Veena Joshi, C.I.T.(D.R.) ORDER Per Shamim Yahya: AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 25.2.2003 pertaining to assessment year 2000-01. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the deduction u/s. 80HHC calculating by the Auditor in their report in Form No. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to 80HHC(3)(b) read with explanation (e) to this sub-section which are reproduced below:- "(b) where the report out of India is of trading goods, the profits derived from such export shall be export turnover in respect of such trading goods as reduced by the direct costs and indirect cots attributable to such export; (e) "indirect costs" means costs, not being direct costs, allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of trading goods to the total turnover." 5. Above extracts clearly show that for computing export benefits in respect of traded goods indirect costs have to be allocated for ratio of exports turnover to the total turnover. Income Tax Act states procedure for computing indirect costs which are deemed attribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1999-2000 by the Ld. CIT(A) and the claim of the assessee was accepted. Assessee submitted that the facts are identical in the preceding year. Hence, the issue is entirely covered in favour of the assessee. 5.1 Ld. CIT(A) further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Madras Motors MM Forgins Ltd. 257 ITR 60. In this case the Ld. AO had taken the total turnover to be the turnover from all the sources of business of the assessee. The assessee had contended that the total turnover must be confined to the turnover of the product which was exported by him i.e. forgings. The Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the total turnover in section 80HHCwas only the turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons referred by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order. He further placed reliance upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd. (2011) 64 DTR (Del) 217. In this case it was held that "where an assessee runs and manages two separate units, one of which is engaged fully or partially in earning income through exports then, in the calculation of proportionate deductible profits for the purpose of deduction under S. 80HHC the 'total turnover of the business' would include only the turnover of the export business and not that of the domestic business." Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand could not controvert the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, nor he coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
