TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,00,65,059/- wherein, claim of deduction of Rs. 2,24,38,491/- was allowed u/s 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after 'the Act'), later an order was framed u/s 154 of the Act dated 01st July 2005, whereby deduction u/s 80 HHC was restricted at Rs. 1,73,92,169/- as against deduction originally allowed of Rs. 2,24,38,491/-. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) directed the re-computation of the deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act by making the following modifications (a) exclusion of the domestic turn-over from total turnover for computing deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act. (b) That value of export incentives adopted by the AO, was directed to be re-examined vis-a-vis the actual import incentives received by the assessee. 3. On appeal by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foreign exchange fluctuation to be considered as export turnover. It gives an impression that apparently the assessee itself not convinced about the latest argument advanced in the proceedings u/s 154 of the IT Act. The exchange fluctuation has to be examined whether it really relates to export sales, whether the amount has realized within the time allowed under the Act etc. This is a fresh issue raised which cannot be subject matter of rectification by any stretch of argument. Hence unquestionably this item cannot be subject matter of rectification. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant on this issue." 8. Before us the ld counsel submitted that foreign exchange fluctuations should be included in the export tur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not the mistake apparent from record. While filing the return of income, the assessee has never claimed this item at all despite the fact that the export benefit was duly claimed after obtaining a certificate in form No.10CCAAA from a qualified Accountant, Even in the original assessment proceedings, this was never raised. Further the assessee relied on various case laws in support of its contention. The assessee itself contended that rectification proceedings cannot he resorted to in order to make a revision III a matter on which there could he two plausible interpretations. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record-and the same cannot the rectified u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. This reasoning has equal fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."attributable" is wider than the word "derived". The Department in this case can be seen from the above example, itself says that Rs. 50,000 in full is the indirect cost which has to be deducted in full as clause (e) does not provide for proportionate deduction. According to the Department, the definition of "indirect costs" will not cover expenses incurred for earning other incomes. However, at the same time, the Department concedes that the assessee had earned export turnover of Rs. 6,50,000/- plus Rs. 1,60,000/- as other incomes. It also concedes that Rs. 50,000/- is the indirect expense. If so, what should be the expense allocated to the earning of the two incomes and in what proportion is the question?. 14. As sated above, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he claim made by the assessee is no longer a debatable issue. In view thereof, the AO is directed to make the necessary rectification in computation of the claim of deduction u/s 80(HHC) of the Act, by reducing the indirect cost by a sum of Rs. 37,03,362/- being 10% of the export incentives and interest income. 16. With respect to ground No.4, the assessee has fairly stated that loss in trading should be adjusted following the judgment of Apex Court in IPCA Laboratories reported in 266 ITR 521 (SC). Hence the said ground is rejected. 17. Ground No.5 relates to claim that ld CIT(A) erred in issuing directions regarding the value of export-incentives at Rs. 3,56,16,653/-, though the same was accepted by the AO and no ground of appeal was ra....