Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)Sujata Grover vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 November, 2001
4. On due consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee deserves to succeed. The term "total turnover" has been defined in a negative manner not to include freight, insurance or incentives earned by the assessee. When the definition specifically excludes certain items from the term "total turnover", it automatically follows that the remaining items shall form part of the total turnover. Even otherwise, the amount received by the assessee on account of exchange difference is nothing but realisation of the goods exported by it and hence, such proceeds have to be construed as the turnover of the assessee only. We find support from the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sujata Grover v. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ 347 (Del) wherein it has been specifically held that exchange rate fluctuation difference is nothing but part of sales. It is further observed that under all circumstances the basic character of the receipt of foreign currency remains the same, i.e., it remains attributable to the export effected by the assessee. Whether there is a profit or a loss, it ultimately goes to increase or reduce the figures of export turnover recorded initially by the assessee in its books of account. In view of this position of law, we uphold the claim of the assessee and direct that the assessee be granted deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.
1