9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted by the AO. Thus the AO is directed to make the necessary rectification by including the sum of ₹ 30,01,318/- as a part of export turn-over. The said ground is thus allowed. Not allowing to reduce the indirect cost equivalent to 10% of export incentives and interest - Held that:- In termsin the case of Hero Exports Vs. CIT (2007 (11) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India ) the claim made by the assessee is no longer a debatable issue. In view thereof, the AO is directed to make the necessary rectification in computation of the claim of deduction u/s 80(HHC) of the Act, by reducing the indirect cost by a sum of ₹ 37,03,362/- being 10% of the export incentives and interest income. Loss in trading should be adjusted followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y making the following modifications (a) exclusion of the domestic turn-over from total turnover for computing deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act. (b) That value of export incentives adopted by the AO, was directed to be re-examined vis-a-vis the actual import incentives received by the assessee. 3. On appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal, by an order dated 28th May 2010, the actions u/s 154 was held to be not maintainable. However on an appeal by the department, the Hon ble High Court by an order dated 08.11.2011 reversed the relief granted to the appellant. Subsequently in a separate order dated 11th May 2012, the Hon ble High Court held as under:- Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had raised some points o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e raised which cannot be subject matter of rectification by any stretch of argument. Hence unquestionably this item cannot be subject matter of rectification. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant on this issue. 8. Before us the ld counsel submitted that foreign exchange fluctuations should be included in the export turnover as the same represents the difference arising on date of recording of sale and realization of sale and therefore is part of export turnover following the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254 . 9. Having considered the above contentions we find force in the same, in as much as that foreign exchange fluctuations o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws in support of its contention. The assessee itself contended that rectification proceedings cannot he resorted to in order to make a revision III a matter on which there could he two plausible interpretations. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record-and the same cannot the rectified u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. This reasoning has equal force on the issue raised by the appellant in this ground. Further as held by the Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. ,any fresh claim made subsequent to the filing of return should he in the form of return only. It cannot raise fresh claims in the rectification proceedings initiated by the AO. Hence the A.O. is justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r earning other incomes. However, at the same time, the Department concedes that the assessee had earned export turnover of ₹ 6,50,000/- plus ₹ 1,60,000/- as other incomes. It also concedes that ₹ 50,000/- is the indirect expense. If so, what should be the expense allocated to the earning of the two incomes and in what proportion is the question?. 14. As sated above, the assessee has earned other income ₹ 1,60,000/- apart from the FOB value of exports of ₹ 6,50,000/-. Therefore, some expense has to be attributed to earning of ₹ 1,60,000/-. If so, the next question which arises is how to allocate the costs? As stated above, the assessee has two incomes with one common pool of expenses and since the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th respect to ground No.4, the assessee has fairly stated that loss in trading should be adjusted following the judgment of Apex Court in IPCA Laboratories reported in 266 ITR 521 (SC). Hence the said ground is rejected. 17. Ground No.5 relates to claim that ld CIT(A) erred in issuing directions regarding the value of export-incentives at ₹ 3,56,16,653/-, though the same was accepted by the AO and no ground of appeal was raised before him. 18. In this regard it is seen that the ld CIT(A) has held as under:- In the impugned order the A.O. has substituted the amount of ₹ 3,56,16,653/- as export incentive as against ₹ 2,17,30,601/- originally claimed and allowed in the return of income. On perusal of the trading ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
