TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to assessment year 1996-97. We find from the perusal of para-9 of the order of the Tribunal, that it was conceded that the Revenue's appeal was infructuous, and was inadvertently taken, because the learned C.I.T. has decided the ground in favour of the Revenue itself. 2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 21.3.2007, by framing two substantial questions of law reading as under:- "(1)Whether the amount received by the assessee from its buyers of its product, to the extent it relates to octroi, sales Tax and Excise Duty is not includable in the total turn over vis-à-vis the export turn over for the purpose of computation of amount deductible under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether in the fact and circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest emanated from exports. The words "total turnover" in Section 80-HHC have to be read as part of the formula, which sought to segregate the "export profits" from the "business profits". Therefore, the formula has to be read in entirety. In that formula the entire business profit is not given deduction. It is the business profit, which is proportionately reduced by the fraction/ratio of export turnover, / total turnover which constitutes Section 80-HHC concession (deduction), and since Section 80 HHC(3) was a beneficial section, it was intended to provide incentives to promote exports. The incentive was to exempt profits relatable to exports. In the case of combined business of an assessee, having export business, and domestic business, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court, in India Cement Vs. CIT reported in (1996 ) 60 ITR-52, that a loan is not an asset, or advance of enduring nature, and the purpose of taking loan is totally an irrelevant consideration, and hence the deduction on account of interest on loans cannot be denied. Then, the learned Tribunal also proceeded to rely upon another judgment of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Reported in (1997) TW-501, holding that the expenditure incurred for raising capital through bonds in business was revenue in nature, and it was held, that since in the present case the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs. 44.00 lakhs on issuance of debentures, being a loan, in our considered opinion, there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... procuring the loan was revenue expenditure within Section 10(2)(xv) of the old Income Tax Act, which corresponds to Section 37 of the present Act. By going through the said judgment it further transpires, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also proceeded to examine the aspect of purpose of raising loan, and its immediate or subsequent utilisation for different purpose, and examined, that even if a loan is raised for purchasing raw material, and after raising the loan the company finds it un-necessary to bye raw material and spends the amount on capital asset, still it cannot be said to be capital expenditure, as it was held, that purpose for which the new loan was required was irrelevant to the question as to whether the expenditure for obtain....