9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2001-02 respectively. 2. While admitting the Tax Appeal No. 1553 of 2007 on December 4, 2007 and Tax Appeal No. 2639 of 2010 on November 9, 2001, the following common substantial question of law was framed by the court for consideration : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for calculating under section 80HHC of the Act turnover of all independent businesses are to be clubbed and thereby rejecting the assessee's contention that turnover of only export business is required to be taken into consideration ?" 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has taken us to the order of the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal and the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e attention of this court to the decision in the case of CIT v. Padmini Technologies Ltd. reported in [2011] 245 CTR (Delhi) 611 and relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under : "8. In our view, the contention is completely mis-conceived. The issue involved in the present case is: 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, would the expression 'total turnover of the business' would include only the turnover of the export business or also that of the domestic business. 9. Before we proceed further it may be relevant to note even though provisions of section 80HHC have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in export and not partially as was the case in Madras Motors Ltd. (supra). In those circumstances, there would be no occasion for disallowing a portion of the export earnings by adopting formula provided in section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. This view was taken by the Madras High Court not only in CIT v. Rathore Brothers [2002] 254 ITR 656 (Mad) but also in CIT v. M. Gani and Co. [2008] 301 ITR 381 (Mad) which in turn followed yet another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta [2007] 291 ITR 462 (Mad). 11. Ms. Aggarwal's submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC) (supra) and Simco Industries Ltd. (supra) would apply is accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction in respect of the sum of Rs. 3.78 crores without taking into account the loss of Rs. 6.86 crores recorded by the assessee in respect of the exports carried out by it qua the goods of supporting manufacturers. The Supreme Court after a detailed consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the expression 'profits from such exports' appearing in section 80HHC(3)(i)(c) could only mean profits of self manufactured goods plus profit of exports of trading goods (i.e., those supplied by sup porting manufacturers). The court concluded that profits had to be calculated by taking into account both exports, and that deduction was per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd. reported in [1986] 161 ITR 320 (SC) wherein the facts were that the assessee-company was engaged in the manufacture of auto mobile spares. The products manufactured by it were covered by the list in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee commenced another activity, the manufacture of alloy steels, which was an industry included in the Fifth Schedule. During the relevant assessment years while the assessee had profits from industry of automobile ancillaries, it had loss from alloy steel industry. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction under section 80E on the profits from the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds received in, or brought into, India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (2) of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies and which are exported out of India, but does not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) ; (ba) 'total turnover' shall not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) : Provided that in relation to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the expression 'total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
