Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs Cit -18, Mumbai on 7 May, 2018
Engineering Corporation vs CIT (1996) 134 taxation 493,
494 (All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.98 seconds)Documents citing
Surendra Engineering Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 December, 2002
Deputy Cit vs Haria Exports Ltd. on 9 July, 2007
32. At the time of hearing, both the parties submitted that the issue was covered by the decision of a Special Bench of this Tribunal in Surendra Engg. Corporation v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 86 ITD 121/130 Taxman 45 (Mum.)(Mag.)
Sakay Traders vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 May, 2005
Subsequently, this issue also came to be considered by the Tribunal, Special Bench, in the case of Surendra Engg. Corporation v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (MumbaiXSB) 347 : (2003) 86 TTD 121 (Mumbai)(SB) where it was held that 10 pert cent of the items mentioned in cl. (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC must be attributed as indirect costs to earning of such income, and to that extent, indirect expenses debited to the P&L a/c be reduced for the purpose of computing deduction under Scction 80HHC(3) of the IT Act. Thus, it was held that any indirect costs which can reasonably be attributed to trading goods of receipts otherwise export turnover of trading goods will have to be left out of consideration at threshold itself. Such action is in conformity with the legislative intent.
Sakay Traders vs Addl. Cit on 31 May, 2005
Subsequently, this issue also came to be considered by the Tribunal Special Bench, in the case of Surendra Engg. Corpn. v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Mumbai) (SB) 347 : (2003) 86 ITD 121 (Mumbai) (SB) where it was held that 10 pert cent of the items mentioned in clause (baa) of Explanation to section 80HHC must be attributed as indirect costs- to earning of such income, and to that extent, indirect expenses debited to the P&L alc be reduced for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC (B) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, it was held that any indirect costs which can reasonably be attributed to trading goods of receipts otherwise export turnover of trading goods will have to be left out of consideration at threshold itself. Such action is in conformity with the legislative intent.
Mmtc Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 April, 2007
11. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. It was argued by the learned Authorised Representative Shri A. Vohra that even while working out indirect cost, only the expenditure which are attributable to export of trading goods is required to be reduced from the export turnover of such goods. He relied on the proposition laid down by Special Bench in case of Surendei Engineering Corporation v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 347 : (2003) 86 JTD 121 (Mumbai)(SB) and the decision of Delhi Bench of Tribunal reported at Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CTT (2005) 97 TTJ (Del) 108.
Jcit, (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata, ... vs M/S Beeyu Overseas Ltd., Kolkata on 3 April, 2019
4. On the issue of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) had followed
the judgment of the Tribunal on the same issue in the assessee's own case for the
Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. The ld. D/R could not
point out any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) in the earlier
Assessment Years has applied the propositions of law laid down by the Special
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Engg. Corpn. v. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax [2003] 86 ITD 121 (MUM.) (SB).
Glenmark Laboratories Ltd. vs The Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax on 27 December, 2007
Further, reliance was plaeed on the decision of Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Engg. Corpn. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 86 ITD 121 (SB). The learned Counsel of the assessee emphasized the following observations of the Tribunal.
Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 19 August, 2005
The Special Bench of Tribunal in Surendra Engineering Corpn. v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 347 : (2003) 86 ITD 121 (Mumbai)(SB) held that indirect costs which are not attributable to export turnover of trading goods should not be taken into consideration. It is clear from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal that for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC, indirect costs related to the export of trading goods is to be apportioned and not all costs other than direct costs have to be prorated to arrive at the indirect costs that have to be reduced. It is only those costs which have some relation to the export of trading goods that need to be allocated. The AO is, therefore, directed to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in respect of trading goods by excluding from the indirect expenses, such expenses not related to the export of trading goods.
1