9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the export income is Nil then whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80HHC on export incentive? - Calculation by CIT (A) was not correct, still pursuant to this amendment coming into force with retrospective effect, respondent will be entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC even where profits derived from the export of goods was a negative figure, i.e., even where there was a loss. Addition u/s. 69A which is stand alone addition having no connection with the allowance or other wise of deduction u/s. 80HHC - It is not denied anywhere that any purchases were ever made or the entries for cash payments made were bogus entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 2004. The Assessing Officer had held that the assessee had no positive income from the export if 90% of incentives and other income are reduced from profit of the business and disallowed the deduction claimed by the assesee under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer also disallowed a sum of ₹ 2,39,57,005/- and brought to tax the said amount under Section 69A (Unexplained money, etc.) after giving a finding that respondent has not been able to satisfactorily explain the acquisition/purchase of goods of this value. According to the Assessing Officer, the purchase has been made against cash but full cash payment has not been made on or before the purchase and therefore, it has to be presumed that cash payment shown in the books after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, when the export income is Nil then whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80HHC on export incentive. (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT has not erred in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) wherein it was held that the assessee is liable for disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the IT Act instead of addition u/s. 69A made by the AO ignoring the fact that the addition of ₹ 2,37,57,005/- was made u/s. 69A which is stand alone addition having no connection with the allowance or other wise of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. 3. At the outset, Mr. Suresh Kumar stated that question no.1 is no more r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in clause (iiia) or clause (iiib) or clause (iiic), as the case may be, or (b) any sum referred to in clause (iiid) or clause (iiie), as the case may be, of section 28, as applicable in the case of an assessee referred to in the second or the third or the fourth proviso, as the case may be, the same proposition as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. This insertion was with retrospective effect from 1st April 1992. Therefore, even for a moment we accept what Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that the calculation by CIT (A) was not correct, still pursuant to this amendment coming into force with retrospective effect, respondent will be entitled to deduction under Section 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
