9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, did not apply. The authorities under the Act have, therefore, rightly treated the aforesaid amount as miscellaneous income and excluded 90% of the said income in view of Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act. Decided against assessee. - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO For the Appellant: Mr. M. Sridhar, Learned Counsel Represents M/s. CKR Associates. For the Respondent: Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department. JUDGMENT PER (THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE) Mr. M. Sridhar, learned counsel represents M/s. CKR Associates for the appellant. Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appears for the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer, by order dated 26.03.2002, did not treat the amount of Rs.552.60 lakhs as profits of business and treated them as miscellaneous receipts under Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessing officer, therefore, reduced 90% of Rs. 552.60 lakhs, while computing the profits of business. The aforesaid deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC was reduced to Rs. 1,05,55,308/- 6. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ), who by order dated 02.12.2002, inter alia held that miscellaneous receipts ought to be reduced by 90% as per Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to prove its eligibility to claim such deduction. In the instant case, the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 5,52,60,467/- from other sources. However, the assessee did not lead any evidence to show that the amount in question was received from the export business. Therefore, the Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 5,52,60,467/- cannot be treated as income from exports. Thus, it is evident that Section 80HHC of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not apply. The authorities under the Act have, therefore, rightly treated the aforesaid amount as miscellaneous income and excluded 90% of the said income in view of Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act. 11. The finding recorded by the authorities under the Act neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
