Gujarat High Court
Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rubamin Pvt. Ltd.....Opponent(S) on 10 October, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, K.J.Thaker
O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1427 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)
Versus
RUBAMIN PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Page 1 of 4
O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT
Date : 10/10/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in ITA No. 1350/A/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97, whereby, the appeal of the ori. Appellant- department was dismissed.
2. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law the ITAT was right in directing the AO to exclude the sums relatable to sales tax, excise duty as they do not form part of "total turnover" for the purpose of computing the profits derived from export for claiming benefit under section 80HHC of the IT Act?"
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the return of the income was filed by the Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT assessee on 30.11.1996, declaring total income at Rs. 33,28,720/-. The return was accompanied with profit and loss account, audit report. The assessee filed revised return on 21.4.1997 declaring total income at Rs. 31,43,990. This return was further revised by filing a revised return on 5.2.1998, in which, the total income declared at Rs. NIL. All these returns were processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and some adjustments were made therein. Therefore, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued upon the assessee.
4. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. In view of the decision reported in [2008] 301 ITR 439 (SC) in the case of B. Desraj vs. Commissioner of Income- tax and the decision reported in [2007] 290 ITR 667 (SC) in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, the present appeal requires to be dismissed because these decisions will enure for the benefit of the assesee as they are fully applicable in the facts of this case. Hence, we are not giving any elaborate reasonings and the question is answered against the appellant-Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The present Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)
Page 3 of 4
O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT
(K.J.THAKER, J)
mandora
Page 4 of 4