TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 2. Both these appeals were admitted on 27 November 2006 on the following common substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the order passed by the CIT without giving any finding, whether the lease hire charges and refund of duty on export proceeds on other services, received by the assessee was operational income attributable to the business of the Assessee or not ? While admitting the petition this Court had directed that besides these two appeals one more appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2006 should also be heard together. However, counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from other sources. This on the ground that the above income is not connected with the respondent's - assessee's export business. Consequently, the order dated 4 February 1999 passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer was set aside and the issue of deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act was restored to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed appeal to the I.T.A.T. The appellant's contention was that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner was improper. It was submitted that merely because the Assessing Officer has taken one of the two possible views it cannot be held that the order of the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n support of the appeals submits that the impugned order dated 30 December 2005 of the I.T.A.T. could not have dismissed the appeal without having considered the issue whether or not the income on account of lease / hire of vessels / barges etc. is income from business or income from other sources. It is submitted that the I.T.A.T. failed to deal with the merits of the matter and for that reason the impugned order of the tribunal is not sustainable. 9. As against the above, Mr. Naniwadekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee submitted that the impugned order calls for no interference. In support he relied upon the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come under the head of profits and gain of business. The Commissioner of Income Tax in exercising his powers in revision has sought to revise the same on the ground that the aforesaid income has for the purposes of Section 80 HHC of the Act has to be excluded from business income and considered as income from other sources. This for the purposes of arriving at export profits under Section 80 HHC of the Act. It is not disputed that the respondent - assessee's income from hire / lease from vessels / barges etc. were a part of its business income under the head of profit and gain of business as a part of its composite business. The order in revision of the Commissioner of Income Tax, seeks to reclassify income from profit and gain of bu....