Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KHAN INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS versus CIT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Khan International Exports v. CIT - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 45 of 1988 [2004] RD-AH 1633 (6 December 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

I.T.R. No.45 of 1988

M/s Khan International Exports (P) Ltd. Varansi

Vs.

CIT, Range, Allahabad.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad  has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court.

"I) Whether on a true and correct interpretation of Section 10(17A) and also in view of provisions contained in the ''charging sections' under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the ''Cash Incentive' amounting to Rs. 7,45,258/- constituted taxable income in the hands of the assessee?

II) Whether on the basis of material and evidence on record and on a true and correct interpretation of the same the Tribunal should not have held that the sum of Rs. 7,45,258/- did not partake the character of ''Income' as envisaged under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was, accordingly, liable to be excluded from the computation of ''taxable income' in the hands of the assessee?

III) Whether, in case the answer to Question Nos. (I) and (II) are in negative and against the assessee, on a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Tribunal should not have held that the sum of Rs. 7,45,258/- was liable to be included in the ''export turnover' of the assessee so as to entitle it to claim due deduction under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

IV) Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding the duty draw back (Rs. 23,929) and premium entitlement (Rs. 19,070.69) were in the nature of ''Income' and were, accordingly, liable to be considered as such in the assessment?

V) Whether in case the answer to Question No. (IV) is in negative and against the assessee, on a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Tribunal should not have held that the sum of Rs. 42,999/- ( Rs. 23,929 + Rs. 19,070/-) was liable to be included in the export turnover of the assessee so as to entitle it to claim due deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"

The reference relates to the Assessment year 1983-84.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:

The applicant is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of export of carpets. In the course of assessment proceedings it has claimed the cash  incentive amounting to Rs. 7,45,258/- and duty drawback of Rs. 23,929/- and premium entitlement of Rs. 19,070.69which it had received under the Export Promotion Policy of the Government of India are not a revenue receipt and, therefore not taxable income at its hand. The Income Tax Officer has held otherwise which order has been upheld upto the stage of the Tribunal.

We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and  Sri A.N.Mahajan learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

We find that by the Finance Act, 1990  sub-clauses (iiib) and (iiic) was inserted in Section 28 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1967 which provided that cash assistance (by whatever name called) and duty drawback received or receivable by any persons against exports under any scheme of the Government of India shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". In view of retrospective amendment, the cash incentive duty drawback and premium entitlement received by the applicant has rightly been held to form part of the income from business or profession and accordingly subjected to tax.

We, therefore, answer question nos. (I) and (II) referred to us  in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

So far as question as to whether the amount of cash incentive,  duty drawback and premium entitlement received by the applicant can be included in the ''export turnover' and deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act was available or not is concerned, it may be mentioned here that the aforementioned amount has been paid by the Government  to the applicant under the ''export promotion policy' of the Government of India and therefore it will not form part of the export turnover and deduction under Section 80HHC is not available on such portion of the income.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

6.12.2004

MZ.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.