TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 80HHC of the Act. This view is a possible view as it is not the case of the Revenue that in law, it is an impossible view. Therefore, in the above facts, the exercise of powers of Revision by the CITwas in the face of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Max India Ltd.[2007 (11) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India]. In the above case, it has been held that where two views are possible, a power of Revision is not to be exercised by the Commissioner only because he does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer, unless, of course, the view of the Assessing Officer is untenable in law. This is not even urged by the Revenue before the Tribunal or before us. Therefor, admittedly a possible view. No substantial questions of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profits for the purposes of deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. 4. Before the Assessing Officer, it was the case of the Respondent that the amount paid under the VRS to the workers in respect of its Bhandup Unit, is not a cost incurred either directly or indirectly in respect of traded export goods. Therefore, it could not be taken into consideration to determine the profit for granting deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Assessing Officer called for the details and on examination of the nature of the expenses with regard to the VRS paid to its workers at Bhandup Unit, concluded that the costs of VRS cannot be included to determine the profits available for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Thus, by order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We note that the Assessing Officer had considered the detailed written submission, inter alia, on the issue of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. On consideration of the submissions, the Assessing Officer came to view that the costs incurred for payment of VRS to its Bhandup Unit workers, cannot be considered as an indirect cost to determine the profits of its traded export goods for allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. This view is a possible view as it is not the case of the Revenue that in law, it is an impossible view. Therefore, in the above facts, the exercise of powers of Revision by the Commissioner of Income Tax was in the face of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v/s. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 . In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
