2015 (7) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... income without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the 3rd proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in overlooking the fact that in the absence of 3rd proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of profit from sale of DEPB license from its total income in the light of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and Section 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of leather and leather garments. The assessment in these cases relate to the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 and for the said assessment years, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals) in deleting the dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.80HHC of the Act. However, for computation of deduction, we deem it appropriate to remit the file back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-compute the deduction in accordance with the decision rendered in the case of M/s.Avani Exports & Others Vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes." 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present Tax Case (Appeals) raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 4. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. It is seen that Section 80HHC(3) of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Ors. reported in (2012) 348 ITR 391 quashed the amendment only to the extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years of the assessees, whose export turnover is above Rs. 10 crores, holding as follows: "26. On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the ass....