2014 (7) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in respect of the goods sold at the counter in convertible foreign exchange in addition to the claim of deduction under Section 80-HHC of the Act against sales made directly by exporting it out of India. The assessing officer disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80-HHC in respect of the goods sold at the counter in convertible foreign exchange, on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence to establish that the goods sold at the counter of the emporium in convertible foreign exchange were in fact custom cleared. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was dismissed. The assessee thereafter prefe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Ram Babu and Sons vs. Union of India, [1996] 222 ITR 606 (All), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Silver & Arts Palace, (2003)129 Taxman 56 (SC), delivered by the Supreme Court of India as well as a recent decision of this Court in M/s Kraft Palace vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra, decided on 19.3.2013 in ITR No.71 of 1997. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion, that the assessee was entitled to get the deductions under Section 80-HHC in respect of counter sales against foreign currency. With regard to the issue of charging interest, the Court finds that the assessing officer had directed that "interest would be charged as per rules". In Ranchi Club Ltd. v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. C.I.T., [1996] 222 ITR 44. Against the judgment of the Patna High Court, the civil appeal(s) was dismissed by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 209. However, that dismissal is by a Three-Judge Bench, whereas the judgment of Anjum Ghaswala's case [supra] is of a Five-Judge Bench of this Court. Be that as it may, the position that emerges after the judgment of this Court in Anjum Ghaswala's case [supra] is that if interest is leviable in a given case under Section 234B/234C, then in such a case that levy is mandatory and compensatory in nature. The recitation by the Assessing Officer directing institution of penal proceedings is not obli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exercise of its powers under Section 245-D(4) and (6) does not have the power to reduce or waive interest statutorily payable under Sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act except to the extent of granting relief under the circulars issued by the Board and Section 119 of the Act. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Karanvir Singh Gossal case (supra), we find that the position of law as propounded in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra) does not change. The decision of the Patna High Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra) still holds the field as the said decision was affirmed by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2001)247 ITR 209. If interest is leviable under Secti....