Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + SC Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURTDeduction u/s 80HHC - supporting manufacturers - whether the assessee being supporting manufacturers, are to be treated on par with the direct exporter for the purpose of deduction of export incentives under Section 80HHC? - HELD THAT:- So far as “supporting manufacturers” are concerned, under Section 80HHC(1A), where any Export House or Trading House has issued a certificate that the supporting manufacturer has, in fact, supplied such goods or merchandise for export, they shall also be allowed a deduction to the extent of profits referred to derived by the assessee from the sale of goods or merchandise to the Export House or Trading House. The manner of deduction, insofar as the exporter is concerned, is laid down in subsection (3) which when read together with its provisos make it clear that profits that are derived from such export shall be further increased in the manner provided by the first proviso; and where export turnover does not exceed rupees ten crores, in the manner provided by the second proviso; and where the export turnover exceeds rupees ten crores, in the manner provided by the third proviso. What is conspicuous by their absence is any of the provisos in sub-section (3) insofar as sub-section (3A) is concerned, which makes it clear that the profits derived by a supporting manufacturer shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 80HHC (3A) read with the explanation to the section, which then defines “Profits of the business” Exporter stands on a completely different footing from the supporting manufacturer as the parameters and scheme for claiming deduction relatable to exporters under 80HHC(1) read with (3) is completely different from that of supporting manufacturers under Section 80HHC (1A) read with (3A) thereof. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us by stating that Baby Marine Exports [2007 (3) TMI 206 - SUPREME COURT] deals with an entirely different question and cannot be relied upon to arrive at the conclusion that the supporting manufacturers are to be treated on par with the direct exporter for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, as has been pointed out by us herein above. Consequently, the decision in SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA [2012 (9) TMI 621 - SC ORDER] is over ruled. We allow these appeals in favour of the Revenue
|