TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee i.e. I.T.A. No.877/Lkw/2008 for assessment year 2003-2004. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in holding that "as per law the amount of DEPB is not liable to be included for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80 HHC and action taken by the Assessing Officer in order", and on that basis in upholding the exclusion of sums aggregating Rs. 1,28,27,486/- from the computation of profit eligible for deduction under section 80 HHC. 2. BECAUSE exclusion of the said sum of Rs. 1,28,27,486/- from the computation of eligible profit is contrary to the letter and spirit of law and the same is even violative of the well laid rule of construction, to the effect tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed A.R. of the assessee that this issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC). 4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that for the first issue i.e. allowability of deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of export incentive, per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra), only profit on sale of DEPB has to be considered for reduction from business profit and not the entire sale proceeds of DEPB. It was also held that for the purpose of computing profit on sale of DEPB, face value of DEPB should be considered as cost of DEPB. Since this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re mutually exclusively to be considered. 3. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer restored." 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03 in I.T.A. No.48/Lkw/06 dated 30/06/2006, copy of which is available on page No. 1 to 10 of the paper book. He further submitted that it was held by the Tribunal that deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IB have to be independently computed and they have to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action taken by the Assessing Officer in order", and on that basis in upholding the exclusion of sums aggregating Rs. 1,19,75,244/- from the computation of profit eligible for deduction under section 80 HHC. 2. BECAUSE exclusion of the said sum of Rs. 1,19,75,244/- from the computation of eligible profit is contrary to the letter and spirit of law and the same is even violative of the well laid rule of construction, to the effect that "beneficial provisions should be construed liberally". 3. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in holding that "Export Incentives & Duty Draw Back is an amount which is directly linked to the activity of export and such incentive/income cannot be attributed to be derived or arisen directly from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of export incentive was decided against the assessee following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) and therefore, this issue is decided against the assessee and ground No. 3 & 4 are rejected. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2004-05 in I.T.A. No.62/Lkw/2009. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in this year: "1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that deduction U/s 80HHC is liable to be computed independently without reducing the amount of deduction U/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. Commissi....