2001 (9) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I Hyderabad, passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee need not export the same goods to get deduction on the incremental turnover under section 80HHC(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The assessee-company filed a return for the assessment year 1983-84 declaring nil income. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer on March 26, 1986, on a total income of Rs.23,27,310. The Commissioner of Income-tax revised the said orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... some other provisions in sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) speaks about export of any goods or merchandise, whereas clause (b) which deals with deduction refers to turnover of "goods and merchandise". The qualifying words 'such goods" occurring in clause (b) are undoubtedly referable to "any goods or merchandise" occurring in sub-section (1). If that is so the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be sustained. The Commissioner of Income-tax has taken the view that the goods in order to qualify for deduction should be the same. In this context, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Indian Products Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 647, may be referred. In that case, during the relevant previous years, the assessee-company export....