TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated. The first question reads as follows :- "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Vibro Bed Drier is an item covered Under Appendix-1/H-III/(3)(III) of the Income Tax Rule 1962 and is entitled for 100% depreciation ?" Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue, drew our attention to the schedule appearing in appendix to the Income Tax Rule 1962 and wanted to impress upon us that Vibro Bed Drier is not an energy saving device as per the aforesaid schedule and therefore 100% depreciation could not have been permitted. Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, drew our attention to item No.3C of the schedule applicable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid views of the Tribunal it appears that energy efficient instrument was considered to fall within the relevant entry of this schedule and therefore 100% depreciation was allowed. The question is a mixed question of fact and law. The department at the appropriate stage did not try to lead any evidence to show that the instrument in question cannot be brought within entry 3B or 3C of the schedule. We are as such unable to find any fault with the views expressed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question formulated in this case reads as follows :- "(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the following observations were made by them :- "We would like to make it absolutely clear that the removal of the amount in question from the figure of closing stock is not tantamount to a 'tinkering' of the closing stock but allowing to the assessee the effective deduction to which it is entitled under Section 43B. We would also like to emphasise that in the subsequent assessment year, the assessee's opening stock would stand reduced by a corresponding figure since it cannot avail of a 'double deduction'." We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In the case of British Paints India Ltd. relied upon by Mr. Bhowmick what had happened wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in favour of the assessee. The third question formulated in this case reads as follows :- "(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the export turnover should be the total of the amount brought to India and the amount paid as brokerage/commission outside India ignoring the fact that the amount paid as brokerage/commssion was not made by appropriate remittances from India ?" Mr. Bhowmick, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue appellant, drew our attention to explanation (b) to Section 80 HHC which reads as follows :- "(b) "export turnover" means the sale proceeds [received in, or brought into, India] by the assessee in convertible foreign e....