9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the ld.AO holding that the deduction under s.80HHC was to be computed at NIL and not granting deduction of Rs. 38,08,898/- under s.80HHC as computed by the appellant. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in holding that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions as required by the provisions of s.80HHC of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that overall computation of deduction under s. 80HHC will not be different under the judgments rendered in the case of Topman Exports and Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals case as specifically contended in ground No:4 before ld.CIT(A). It be so held now and the deduction as claimed as per CA certificate in Form No: 10CCAC be allowed. 3. Both the lower authorities have erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t") in accordance with the decision of ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO reported at (2009) 318 ITR (A.T.) 87 (Mum.)[Special Bench]. In pursuance to the order of the Tribunal, the AO computed the deduction allowable u/s.80HHC to NIL. The assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of the AO, preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions and following the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals reported at (2010) 328 ITR 451(Bombay High Court), dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is further in appeal before us. 3. Ground Nos.1 to 5 are inter-connected and, therefore, the same are being decided together. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal was clear to compute the deduction in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO(supra). 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Tribunal (ITAT 'C' Bench Ahmedabad) in ITA No.776/Ahd/2007 for Y 2003-04 (assessee's own case) vide its order dated 30/10/2009 was pleased to restore the issue in respect of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act, by observing as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not make any difference because whatever amount is reduced from the "profit of the business" as per Explanation (baa), the same will be increased by the identical amount as per various provisos of Section 80HHC(3) of the Act. In other words, the overall computation of claim of deduction u/s.80HHC will not materially be different under both the judgments. Thus, the amount of deduction of Rs. 38,08,898/- u/s.80HHC as shown will remain unchanged. The AO did not accept the contention on the basis that the export turnover of the assessee is more than Rs. 10 crores. Further, it was noticed that profits derived from export in respect of goods or merchandise manufactured are at loss. Profits derived from export in respect of trading goods is at R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
