Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing A. M. Moosa vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 14 September, 1995

Prestige Foods Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 November, 1996

The other judgment of Cochin Bench in the case of A. M. Moosa vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) does not render any assistance to the assessee as the facts of this case are distinguishable with the facts of the instant case. Each and every case has to be decided on its own facts. In this case, the Tribunal has interpreted the provision given in s. 80HHC(3) of the Act and on this point we do not have any different opinion. After careful perusal of s. 80HHC of the Act it appears to us that this section is self-explanatory and there is no ambiguity in s. 80HHC(3) of the IT Act. The language adopted in its sub-cl. (c) is very clear and by its plain reading, we are of the view that for ascertaining the net profit derived from the export business of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by him and of trading goods, the individual profit from both the activities of the assessee is to be computed in accordance with the formula applicable to respective activities and clubbed with each other. After ascertaining the net profit from the export business of the assessee from both the activities, it shall be further increased as per the proviso given under that sub-section and thereafter a deduction shall be allowed as per sub-s. (1) of s. 80HHC. If this interpretation is applied in the instant case, we find that the assessee did not make proper calculations of profit from both the units and deduction was not properly claimed by him. The AO and the CIT(A) have properly applied provisions of s. 80HHC and we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and reject this ground of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 35 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pratibha Syntex Ltd. on 16 June, 1998

It was submitted that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the decision of Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prestige Foods Ltd. (supra) favours the interpretation of the Revenue, although in that decision, the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A. S. Moosa (supra) has not been specifically dissented by the Hon'ble Members of Indore Bench of the Tribunal; even then in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) a view, which is favourable to the assessee, should be adopted. Shri Sanjay Kapadia, the learned representative of the assessee extensively read from the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1992-93 - specially para 2.6 and submitted that deduction under the proviso to s. 80HHC(3) clearly indicates that the benefit under the proviso is over and above, the deduction available under s. 80HHC(3)(a). It was further submitted that in the Expln. to s. 80HHC the word 'adjusted' has been extensively used with reference to (i) adjusted export turnover, (ii) adjusted profit of the business, and (iii) adjusted total turnover, but the proviso uses the words 'to be further increased'. According to the learned authorised representative of the assessee, had there been any intention to adjust the benefit to be allowed under the proviso, against the negative figure as computed at the first stage under s. 80HHC(3)(a), the word 'to be further increased' might not have been used. It was further submitted that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representative on the various decisions (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom), (1993) 202 ITR 731 (Bom), (1995) 216 ITR 199 (Bom), (1995) 214 ITR 175 (Bom), (1976) 101 ITR 764 (SC), (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC), (1957) 32 ITR 615 (SC), (1997) 224 ITR 604 (SC) and (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) cited supra is misplaced as the decisions relied upon are distinguishable on facts and in fact, they do not relate to the interpretation of s. 80HHC at all. The learned representative of the assessee also brought to our notice the Oxford English Dictionary meaning for the words 'reduce' inter alia as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Prestige Foods Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 27 November, 1996

The other judgment of Cochin Bench in the case of A. M. Moosa vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) does not render any assistance to the assessee as the facts of this case are distinguishable with the facts of the instant case. Each and every case has to be decided on its own facts. In this case, the Tribunal has interpreted the provision given in s. 80HHC(3) of the Act and on this point we do not have any different opinion. After careful perusal of s. 80HHC of the Act it appears to us that this section is self-explanatory and there is no ambiguity in s. 80HHC(3) of the IT Act. The language adopted in its sub-cl. (c) is very clear and by its plain reading, we are of the view that for ascertaining the net profit derived from the export business of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by him and of trading goods, the individual profit from both the activities of the assessee is to be computed in accordance with the formula applicable to respective activities and clubbed with each other. After ascertaining the net profit from the export business of the assessee from both the activities, it shall be further increased as per the proviso given under that sub-section and thereafter a deduction shall be allowed as per sub-s. (1) of s. 80HHC. If this interpretation is applied in the instant case, we find that the assessee did not make proper calculations of profit from both the units and deduction was not properly claimed by him. The AO and the CIT(A) have properly applied provisions of s. 80HHC and we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and reject this ground of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avon Cycles Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 26 July, 1996

(a) and (b), there is no difficulty in increasing the same by the 90 per cent export incentive as stipulated in cl. (c) but if the profits under cls. (a) and (b) are negative, then harmonious construction suggests that those losses cannot be increased by a positive figure under cl. (c). Even if there is a ambiguity the same has to be interpreted in favour of the assessee. The interpretation placed by us on the provisions contained in sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC gets further support from the decision of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A.M. Moosa (supra). The headlines in that case on which we rely are reproduced as under.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pratibha Syntex Itd. on 16 June, 1998

(supra) favours the interpretation of the Revenue, although in that decision, the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A.S. Moosa (supra) has not been specifically dissented by the Hon'ble Members of Indore Bench of the Tribunal; even then in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vegetable Products ITD. 1973 CTR (SC) 177: (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) a view, which is favourable to the assessee, should be adopted. Shri Sanjay Kapadia, the learned representative of the assessee extensively read from the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1992-93-specially para 2.6 and submitted that deduction under the proviso to s. 80HHC(3) clearly indicates that the benefit under the proviso is over and above, the deduction available under s. 80HHQ3)(a). It was further submitted that in the ExpIn. to s. 80HHC the word 'adjusted' has been extensively used with reference to (i) adjusted export turnover, (ii) adjusted profit of the business, and (iii) adjusted total turnover, but the proviso uses the words 'to be further increased'. According to the learned authorised representative of the assessee, had there been any intention to adjust the benefit to be allowed under the proviso, against the negative figure as computed at the first stage under s. 80HHC(3)(a), the word 1o be further increased' might not have been used. It was further submitted that the reliance of the learned Departmental Representative on the various decisions (1993) 114 CTR (Bom.) 289 : (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom.), (1993) 202 ITR 731 (Bom.), (1995) 126 CTR (Bom.) 395: (1995) 216 M 199 (Bom.), (1995) 125 CTR (Bom.) 238: (1995) 214 ITR 175 (Bom.), 1976 CTR (SC) 25: (1976) 101 ITR 764 (SC), (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC), (1957) 32 ITR 615 (SC), (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 359 ' -(1997) 224 ITR 604 (SC) and (1985) 47 CTR (SQ) 349 : (1985) 155 17R 120 (SC) cited supra is misplaced as the decisions relied upon are distinguishable on facts and in fact, they do not relate to the interpretation of s. 80HHC at all. The learned representative of the assessee also brought to our notice the Oxford English Dictionary meaning for the words 'reduce' inter alia as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next