2018 (11) TMI 1554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s been admitted, vide order dated 14.08.2008, on the following Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s.80HHC in respect of 90% of income from sale of DEPB license?" 3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, the learned Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4.The learned counsel for the assessee as well as the Revenue agree that the above Substantial Question of Law has been answered in the case of M.Lankalingam vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (T.C.A.No.1013 of 2008, dated 1.8.2018). The operative portion of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing direction:- "Having seen the twin conditions and since 80HHC benefit is not available after 1.4.05, we are satisfied that cases of exporters having a turnover below and those above 10 cr. should be treated similarly. This order is in substitution of the judgment in Appeal." The decision in the said case has been reported in CIT v. Avani Exports [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 100 (SC)]. 8.In our considered view, the decision in the case of CIT v. Avani Exports (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case and the Tribunal committed an error in applying the decision in Sterling Foods (supra). 9.Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Court may set aside the order and direct the....