TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and would pass a reasoned in accordance with law. Such order does not raise any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal fails on both the questions proposed as substantial questions of law by the Revenue. - TAX APPEAL No. 470 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2012 - MR. V. M. SAHAI AND MR. N.V. ANJARIA JJ. Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s): 1, ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) JUDGMENT The present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 09.07.2010 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C in ITA No.2080/1995, wherein the following questions are proposed to be arising as the substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter, the point formulated by the Revenue in question (A) proposed as substantial question of law, reproduced hereinabove, has been covered and decided in Laxmi Machine Works (supra). It was held that the principal reason for enacting the formula in section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to disallow a part of the concession thereunder when the entire deduction claimed cannot be regarded as relating to exports. Therefore, while interpreting the words total turnover in the formula in section 80HHC one has to give a schematic interpretation. The various amendments made therein show that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, etc., do not form part of business profits as they have no nexus with the activity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excluded. 4.2 In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Question (A) stands answered and with regard to that question there is substance in the appeal. 5. As far as question (B) proposed as substantial question of law is concerned, it is seen that by the impugned order, the Tribunal has restored the issue remanding the matter for that matter to CIT(A) observing that the Appellate Commissioner had rejected the claim of the assessee without passing any speaking order. To be precise, the Tribunal while passing the aforesaid order has observed as under: The assessee made a specific submission before the authorities below by claiming that the gross total income of Rs.10,70,000/- did not include the amount of Rs.9,15,617/-. Once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
