Court affirms Section 80HHC deduction for marble export, rejects revenue's appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessee's entitlement to the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of marble blocks. The Court relied on previous decisions and found the assessee's position justified, emphasizing that Circular No. 693 did not affect their claim. The Tribunal's findings were deemed correct, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. The substantial question of law was resolved in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of deduction under Section 80HHC on export of marble blocks.

Analysis:
The High Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the point in question had already been decided against the revenue in a previous case involving similar circumstances. The appeal was admitted based on a substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of marble blocks. The Court noted that the issue had been previously settled in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Arihant Tiles & Minerals (P) Ltd. The findings of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee were considered binding, and it was concluded that the deduction under Section 80HHC for the export of cut and polished marble blocks was justified. The Court also addressed the legal effect of Circular No. 693 dated 17th November 1994, stating that it did not adversely affect the claims of the assessee, who were entitled to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80HHC. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

The Court emphasized that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under Section 80HHC were correct and not perverse. The judgment highlighted that the Circular No. 693 did not impact the claims of the assessee and that they were entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Court affirmed that the appeals of the revenue were liable to be dismissed based on the established facts and legal precedents. As a result, the present appeal was also dismissed for the same reasons as the previous case involving similar issues. The substantial question of law framed in the appeal was decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs being issued.

---