9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MRS KALPANAK RAVAL FOR THE OPPONENT JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. B. PARDIWALA ) This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short the Act ) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 31.8.2007 in the ITA No. 3933/Ahd/2003 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001. 2. We are called upon to consider the following two substantial questions of law, on which the Appeal has been admitted : 1. Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions. In our opinion, the matter stands squarely covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of International Research Park Laboratories Ltd., Vs ACIT, 212 ITR 1. This view also finds support from the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs Jose Thomas, 253 ITR 553, wherein, the assessee was engaged in various business activities such as processing and export of sea foods, construction and sale of flats, shipping agency business and also deriving income in the form of interest and dividend. For the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC, the total turnover was directed to be including cost of flats constructed by the assessee because in the opinion of the Lordship, turnover in respect of works contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to and taken note of it. We respectfully follow the Special Bench decision which also finds support of Kerala High Court decision in the Case of CIT(A) Vs Jose Thomas, 253 ITR 553, in the case of CIT Vs Parry Agro Industries Ltd, 267 ITR 41, and in the case of Indian Spices Co. Vs CIT, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in disallowing the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) is directed to work out the deduction u/s 80HHC by taking the turnover of units separately. 5. The aforesaid view taken by the Tribunal stands fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Devraj R. Agarwal (supra). 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The substantial questions are answered in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
