2016 (5) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue has urged following two questions of law for our consideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that sundry creditors written back should not be reduced from the profits of business under the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause (baa) of explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said receipts cannot be termed as profit derived from eligible export business and are in the nature of profit attributable to eligible business and therefore these receipts are covered within the scope of term "any other receipts of similar nature" as provided in sub-clause (1) of clause (baa) of explanation to section 80HHC? (b) Whether o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r alia recomputed the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC of the Act. This by inter alia excluding 90% of the job work charges from the profits of the business of the respondent assessee on application of the Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Act on recording a finding of fact that job work charges do not have any nexus with the export activity of the respondent assessee. The Assessing Officer also on facts did not accept the alternative claim of restricting the disallowance of 90% only to net receipts. This on the ground that the respondent was not able to establish the net income attributable to job charges is different from gross receipts. 8. Being aggrieved, the respondent assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur of the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228 and following that the decision of this Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tax Appeal No.53 of 2006) rendered on 7th May, 2015. Thus, the issue is no longer resintegra. 11. As against the above, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assessee does not dispute that the law as laid down in K.Ravindranathan Nair (supra) and Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) would have to be applied to the facts of the present case. However, he submits that this issue be restored to the Assessing Officer for the purposes of examining the exact nature of job work charges received by the respondent assessee to examine w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith the export earnings of the respondent assessee. In fact, the Assessing Officer has categorically given a finding of fact that job work charges received has no nexus to export. Therefore, the request for restoring of the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as submitted by the respondent, is not warranted. In view of the above, as the issue stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair (supra) the substantial question of law raised for our consideration is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent assessee. 13. So far as the alternative submission of Mr. Mistri, the learned Senior Counsel that while giving effect to this order, the Assessing Officer....