| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 2367 2005 SLD 2367 (2005) 275 ITR 8 |
Kerala High Court
IT APPEAL Nos. 31 TO 33 OF 2004 FEBRUARY 4, 2005
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT APPEAL Nos. 31 TO 33 OF 2004 FEBRUARY 4, 2005
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ameena Enterprises
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax*
Law:
Section:
Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction - Exporters - Assessment years 1992-93, 1996-97 and 1997-98 - Whether assessee who is proved to be supporting manufacturer is not entitled to claim exemption under section 80HHC without production of valid disclaimer certificate in time issued by Export House in Form 10CCAB - Held, yes Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings after certain dates - Assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 - Whether no deduction under section 80-I would be allowed in respect of an industry engaged in fish processing and packing - Held, yes FACTS The assessee had exported goods through export house. Assessee's claim for exemption on export profits under section 80HHC was disallowed by all the authorities on ground that no disclaimer certificate was produced from the Export House in Form 10CCAB and the certificate which was produced after a lapse of six years was unacceptable. On appeal : HELD The assessee itself had conceded that the export to foreign buyers was through Export Houses and the shipping documents clearly indicated that the goods were shipped by the assessee on account of the Export Houses. There is and there can be only one export from Indian exporter to the foreign buyer and that export is done by the Export Houses. There cannot be two exporters in India in respect of the very same consignment and since the exports were in the name of the Export Houses, the assessee who arranged the goods and shipped on board the same, was only supporting manufacturer. The assessee's reliance on the terms of the agreement providing for transfer of goods after the vessel crossed the customs frontiers based on section 2(18) of the Customs Act was, therefore, not tenable. Going by the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below, it could be said that that the assessee's exports were through Export Houses and the assessee after receiving consideration from the Export Houses for arranging such exports in addition to sale consideration could not even raise a contention to the contrary, which was self-contradictory. [Para 2] The scheme of section 80HHC is to provide…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492