2007 (6) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA JJ. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the appellant. Mr. M. P. Senthilkumar for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court wasdelivered by P. D. DINAKARAN, J. - 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench dated 31.7.2003 made in I.T.A.No.1536/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1996-97, raising the following substa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... job work charges. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these receipts were wrongly included for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC as the same had no direct nexus with the export activities of the assessee, and accordingly, reopened the assessment and completed the same under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. 3. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered against them and in favour of the assessee vide the decision of Southern Sea  Foods Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2007] 288 ITR 151, wherein it is held that the income derived for freezing and processing of marine products, but for which operation the export cannot be made, is an income earned by using the entire undertaking of the company, i.e., machin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X