TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E COURT OF INDIA] – there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the dis-allowance made by the AO u/s.80HHC of the Act – but, for computation of deduction, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the AO – AO shall recompute the deduction in accordance with M/s.Avani Exports & Others Vs. CIT [2012 (7) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the AYs observed that the assessee s turnover during the year exceeds ₹ 10.00 Crores. The assessee has not complied with the amended provisions of section 80HHC(3), therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim benefit of the deduction. Aggrieved by the assessment order in the respective AYs, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) by following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... htly claimed deduction u/s.80HHC in accordance with judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Topman Exports reported as 342 ITR 49 (SC) and IPCA Laboratory Ltd., Vs. DCIT reported as 266 ITR 521 (SC) (supra). We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.80HHC of the Act. However, for computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
