2013 (12) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Deputy Commissioner of Income (2004) 266 ITR 521, held that the assessee, exporting goods manufactured by itself and also trading goods of supporting manufacturers, could not have claimed deductions under Section 80HHC, if he has returned the net loss from export of goods. The Supreme Court held that the word 'profit' in sub section (1) and (3) (a) and (b), of Section 80HHC means a positive profit. In other words, if there was a loss, then no deduction would be available under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) (a) or (b). In arriving at the figure of positive profit, both the profits and the losses will have to be considered. If the net figure is a positive profit then the assessee will be entitled to deduction; if the net figure is a loss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bt that it is not at all a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or intentions by claiming a higher deduction. Rather, the assessee had a bona fide view of making the particular u/s 80HHC which was subject to legal debate and finally was allowed at a less figure, because of legal amendment. 4.4 Even if assessee's entire claim had been disallowed because of the decision of the Supreme Court; that would not have tantamounted to assessee concealing its income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income, because most of the assesses were making similar calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC, as per the then prevailing interpretation. 4.5 From no angle whatsoever, this is a case falling under any provisions of section 271 ....