Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Section 80HHC: Tribunal Expands 'Export' Definition to Include Merchanting Trade for Deduction Eligibility.

        SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-XXIV, Mumbai

        SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-XXIV, Mumbai - [2006] 10 SOT 679 (MUM.) Issues Involved:
        1. Definition of "export" under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        2. Applicability of Customs Act, 1962, and Foreign Trade (Regulation & Development) Act, 1992 (FTRDA-92) in determining "export."
        3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80HHC for goods not physically brought into India.
        4. Interpretation of the term "export out of India" in Explanation (aa) of Section 80HHC.
        5. Relevance of case laws and judicial precedents in interpreting Section 80HHC.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Definition of "export" under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
        The primary issue was whether the sale of goods directly from Germany to Bangladesh by the assessee constituted an "export" under Section 80HHC. The assessee argued that the term "export" should be interpreted broadly to include merchanting or third-country trade, which does not require physical movement of goods from India. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the goods must be physically exported from India to claim the deduction.

        2. Applicability of Customs Act, 1962, and Foreign Trade (Regulation & Development) Act, 1992 (FTRDA-92) in determining "export":
        The CIT(A) relied on the definitions provided in the Customs Act, 1962, and FTRDA-92, which define "export" as taking goods out of India. The assessee contended that Section 80HHC is a self-contained code and does not require reference to the Customs Act. The assessee also pointed out that under the Import & Export Policy (1992-97), merchanting trade is recognized, allowing goods to be sold from one country to another without physically entering India.

        3. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80HHC for goods not physically brought into India:
        The assessee argued that the objective of Section 80HHC is to augment foreign exchange reserves, and the physical movement of goods into and out of India is not a necessary condition for claiming the deduction. The CIT(A) and Assessing Officer held that the deduction could only be claimed if the goods were cleared at an Indian customs station, which did not happen in this case.

        4. Interpretation of the term "export out of India" in Explanation (aa) of Section 80HHC:
        Explanation (aa) of Section 80HHC specifies that "export out of India" excludes transactions not involving customs clearance. The assessee argued that this explanation applies only to over-the-counter sales in India and not to merchanting trade. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the goods must be physically exported out of India to qualify for the deduction.

        5. Relevance of case laws and judicial precedents in interpreting Section 80HHC:
        The assessee cited several judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court decision in Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that physical export from India is not required for claiming deductions under certain sections of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed these precedents, stating they were not applicable to Section 80HHC. The assessee also referred to the Supreme Court decision in J.B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT, which emphasized the importance of substance over form in interpreting tax provisions.

        Tribunal's Conclusion:
        The Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, stating that the primary objective of Section 80HHC is to augment foreign exchange reserves. The Tribunal noted that the term "export" should be interpreted broadly to include merchanting trade. The Tribunal also emphasized that the physical movement of goods into and out of India is not a necessary condition for claiming the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in J.B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd. and other judicial precedents to support its conclusion. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC on the profits earned from the sale of goods directly from Germany to Bangladesh.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found