Case Law Details

Case Name : CIT Vs. Dresser Rand India (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6281) Bombay High Court (1092)

Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean business profits as reduced by 90% of .. “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature“. The Tribunal took the view, on the basis of Bangalore Clothing 260 ITR 371 (Bom) that receipts towards recovery of freight, insurance, packing receipts, sales tax set off/refund and service income were “operational income” and not liable to be excluded under Expl (baa) to s. 80HHC.

On appeal by the Revenue, HELD reversing the Tribunal:

(i) The ratio of Ravindranathan Nair 295 ITR 228 (SC) is that Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC required receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports to be reduced from business profits under clause (baa) so as to avoid distortion in the computation of export profits;

(ii) In Bangalore Clothing Co 260 ITR 371 (Bom) it was held that If an item of income is closely linked with business operations and constitutes “operational income”, it cannot be excluded under Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC. This proposition is inconsistent with the law in Ravindranathan Nair and is no longer good law. The submission that Bangalore Clothing was impliedly approved in Baby Marine Exports 290 ITR 323 (SC) is not acceptable because that judgement turned on the fact that the export house premium was an integral part of the consideration for the sale realised by the assessee, a supporting manufacturer.

See Also: CIT vs. Asian Star Co (Bom): For Expl (baa) to s. 80HHC, netting of income from expenditure is not allowed

NF

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031