TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 18th June, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 18th June, 2014 is in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95. 2. Revenue urges the following reframed question of law, for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n traded export goods. This to arrive as its profits for the purposes of deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act. 4. Before the Assessing Officer, it was the case of the Respondent that the amount paid under the VRS to the workers in respect of its Bhandup Unit, is not a cost incurred either directly or indirectly in respect of traded export goods. Therefore, it could not be taken into consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... VRS was includable in determining the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. This on the ground that the Assessment Order not doing so was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Thus, restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine the profits for the purposes of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, in the above terms. 6. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an appeal to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. On consideration of the submissions, the Assessing Officer came to view that the costs incurred for payment of VRS to its Bhandup Unit workers, cannot be considered as an indirect cost to determine the profits of its traded export goods for allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. This view is a possible view as it is not the case of the Revenue ....