TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for the same as in the case of Jeyar Consultant and Investment Pvt. Ltd (Supra) it is held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that if there is net profit from the export business, after adjusting the losses from one type of export business against profits from another type of export business, the benefit of the provision would be granted. The Tribunal is justified in deducting the loss from the gross profit and the benefit is rightly granted on the basis of net profit. Since the supporting manufacturer has made loss, there is no question of claim being made by assessee. Accordingly, the question is answered against the appellant – revenue and in favour of the assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1985 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - MR. KS JHAV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g manufacturers. In the return of income, the assessee had deducted export turnover on which benefit of deduction u/s 80HHC had been passed on to supporting manufacturers from the total export turnover. The Assessing Officer disallowed loss of ₹ 3,62,87,480/- suffered by the assessee for the export of soyaben, rice etc which were the goods of supporting manufacturers and restricted issuance of disclaimer certificate u/s 80HHC(4A). On appeal the CIT (Appeals) dismissed the same. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, by impugned judgment and order, Tribunal partly allowing the appeal, upheld the disallowance of loss of ₹ 3.63 crores and directed not to deduct the amount of ₹ 4.34 crores in respect of disclaime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the export business, then the deduction under the aforesaid Act is not permissible. As a fortiori, if there is net profit from the export business, after adjusting the losses from one type of export business from other type of export business, the benefit of the said provision would be granted. 19) It is also to be borne in mind that in both the aforesaid cases namely IPCA and A.M. Moosa, the Court was concerned with two business activities, both of which related to export, one from export of self manufactured goods and other in respect of trading goods i.e. those which are manufactured by others. In other words, the Court was concerned only with the income from exports. In the present case, however, the fact situation is somewhat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 80HHC would still be available. In the present case, since there are losses in the export business, question of providing deduction under Section 80HHC does not arise and as a consequence, there is no question of computation of any such deduction in the manner provided under sub-section (3). 6. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to show and/or point out any contrary decision. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the assessee and the question posed for consideration before us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of the Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Jeyar Consultant and Investment Pvt. Ltd (Supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
