Law:

Section:

Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Exporters - Assessment year 1991-92 - Major part of assessee's turnover was from twisting and wearing, conversion, doubting and reeling charges - Assessing Officer included conversion charges received in total turnover for purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC - Whether in view of decision of High Court in case of CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 425 (Mad.) conversion charges could not be included in total turnover for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC - Held, yes FACTS The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment of the assessee company for the assessment year 1991-92, found that the assessee had not taken into account the conversion charges received to the figure of the total turnover. The assessee's objection was that the conversion charges were only job work receipts which could not be considered as a turnover. The Assessing Officer had rejected the contention of the assessee and included the conversion charges received in the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by holding that the major part of the assessee's turnover was from twisting and weaving, conversion, doubling and reeling charges and, therefore, held that those receipts should also be included in the total turnover. However, the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was reversed when the matter was carried on appeal before the Tribunal. On revenue's appeal : HELD This High Court in CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 425 held that the charges of miscellaneous income and commission do not form part of the turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the case, it was to be held that the conversion charges had to be excluded from the business profit for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC. CASE REVIEW CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 425 (Mad.) - followed. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Mital Powder Co. Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 48 / 174 Taxman 398 (Mad.),…

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