Profit on transfer of DEPB not taxable: ITAT, Rajkot
Levy of income tax on transfer of DEPB for exporters having turnover of Rs. 10 crore or more is a subject of dispute between exporters and tax officials in various law courts. A landmark judgment on this issue granting relief to exporters was delivered by ITAT, Mumbai, which was covered in February 2008 issue of FIEO NEWS.
Another judgment on the issue delivered recently by Rajkot Bench of ITAT in the case of M/s Silver Sea Foods v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar, adds further clarification to the issue.
In this case, IT authorities considered the sale of DEPB amounting to Rs.3,51,35,940 as profit of sale of DEPB under Section 28 (iiid) holding the cost of DEPB as nil. However, this was rejected by ITAT in the light of the speech made by the Finance Minister in Parliament while seeking amendment brought in Taxation Law (Amendment) Act 2005.
The judgment quotes the Finance Minister as saying: "A DEPB credit sale is, that on your DEPB Passbook if you have certain credits in your favour then you can import items against the credit without paying duty. But you can also sell the credit to Importer. If you actually import, then it is part of export-import. If you sell it to another importer and make a profit on that i.e. premium, then it is not export profit, but simple business profit because the income you earn is not in foreign exchange but in Indian rupee. It does not arise out of export activity or import activity. It arises because you are trading in a "License," which has a premium in the market."
The ITAT has made it clear that the word used in the section is "profits" and not the "sale proceeds". The sale proceeds represent total consideration received on the transfer while the world "profits" represent the difference between the sale consideration and the cost incurred, says the Tribunal.
The Tribunal adds that since the definition of income under Section 2(24) was not amended with clause (iiid) inserted under Section 28(iiid) as was the case when clauses (iiia), (iiib) & (iiic) were inserted in Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1990, the natural meaning of the word "income" still remains intact.
The Tribunal explains with an example. "A company obtained a DEPB license for Rs. 1,00,000 and sold in the open market for a premium of Rs. 10,000, thus receiving Rs. 1,10,000. In such case, profit on sale of DEPB would be Rs. 10,000. While preparing financial statement, the assessee will show the reimbursement of duty component in the DEPB scheme as Rs. 1,00,000 and profit on sale of DEPB as Rs. 10,000, aggregating to Rs. 1,10,000 as income under the head "DEPB Income" in profit and loss account. Correspondingly, profit and loss account be debited by duty component if not already debited through imports/exports duty account. The aforesaid accounting entries also prove that DEPB license involves cost to the extent of customs duty paid on the import content of export products."
The details of the judgment is reproduced below:
O R D E R
Per of Bench of: All these Appeals by the different Assessees are directed against separate Orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["CIT (A) for short] for the different assessment years. Since in all these appeals the common have been involved, they were heared together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
ITA No.09/RJT/2007 in the case of M/s Silver Sea Foods:
The effective grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under:
-
The learned AO has erred in law as well as on facts in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act of Rs.3,77,785/- instead of Rs.1,57,18,622/- and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same.
-
The learned AO has erred in law as well as on facts, in considering the sales of DEPB amounting to Rs.3,51,35,940/- as profit on sale of DEPB u/s 28(iiid) holding that the cost of DEPB is NIL. He ought to have considered the profits on sale of DEPB of Rs.50,26,558/- while working profits of the business under Explanation (baa) of section 80 HHC and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same.
-
The learned AO has erred in law as well as on facts in considering. Export Premium income of Rs.77,372/- as commission income. He ought to have considered the same as profit derived from the export of goods and ought not to have reduced the business profit by 90% thereof and the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same.
-
The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing and exports of marine products. It filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 showing total income of Rs.1,79,80,573/- . Deduction under section 80HHC was claimed by filing prescribed Form No.10CCAC. Because of amendment by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 in the provision of section 80HHC and section 28 of the Income Tax Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998, the gamut of deduction of export profit u/s 80 HHC got changed. The assessee has export turnover of Rs.60,54,67,262/- which is more than Rs.10 crores therefore the deduction was required to be reworked in view of this amendment.
-
The assessee has worked out the deduction u/s 80HHC at Rs.1, 57, 18,622/-. On a query by the AO, the assessee stated that the profit on transfer of DEPB is covered u/s 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and are, therefore, chargeable to tax as business profit. It was further submitted that 90% of the profit on transfer of DEPB was reduced from the profit of the business as per Explanation (baa) to 80 HHC. The assessee accordingly again recomputed the deduction u/s 80HHC after excluding 90% of the profit on transfer of DEPB at Rs.1, 54, 67,294/-. It was also mentioned before the AO that the assessee incurred loss on some DEPB entitlements while in respect of some other DEPB entitlements, it earned profits. A detailed statement was filed before the AO working out the loss/profit in respect of each and every DEPB entitlement. The AO did not agree with the contention of the assessee. The AO was of the view that although the profit on the sale of the DEPB Scheme credit is assessed under the head "Income from business" but the assessee has to exclude 90% of the consideration received on the sale of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme Credit as in the opinion of the AO the actual cost incurred by the assessee in getting DEPB was NIL the deduction u/s 80HHC was recomputed accordingly.
-
The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). One of the issues in the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC was that the AO has not worked out the deduction u/s 80HHC correctly. The AO wrongly considered the consideration received on the sale of DEPB amount as profit on the sale of DEPB u/s 28(iiid) holding that the cost of the DEPB is NIL. The CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and followed his order dated 27-09-2006 in appear No. CIT(A)/Jam/86/06-07 in the case of Siddique Sea Food, Porbandar which is also pending before us in ITA No. 443/RJT/2006 and is disposed of along with these appeals, by observing as under:
"7.4 I have duly considered the above submission of the appellant. I have discussed this issue in detail in order dated 27-9-06 in appeal No. CIT(A)/Jam/87-06-07 in the case of Siddique Sea Food, Porbandar for the AY 2003-04. I have in that case, after detailed discussion held that the entire DEPB amount transferred by way of sale during the year is ‘profits’ as the cost price of the credits is ‘nil’. The issue regarding ‘profit’ on sale of DEPB u/s 80HHC as discussed in para 5.14 of the said appellate order is reproduced as under:
"The issue now to be decided is as to the meaning of the term ‘profit’ under Sec. 28(iiid) read with sec. 80HHC of the act. In this regard, Finance Minister’s speech in the Parliament on the amendment brought about by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.r.e.f. 1-4-1998 by way of insertion of clause (iiid) to the above section is important. The relevant extract of the speech is as under:-
"…. We are now dealing with only the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2005. That is a period of about seven years. This problem did not arise before 1.4.1998. This problem does not arise after 1.4.2005. In this period of seven years, the relevant section – I am not getting into an exposition of the law – are section 28 and section 80HHC. These are the two sections which are relevant. Now, the department’s interpretation is that DEPB credit sale – I will explain what it is – is not export profit. What is a DEPB credit sale? A DEPB credit sale is, that on your DEPB Passbook, if you have certain credits in your favour, you can import items against the credit without paying duty. But you can also sell the credit to another importer. If you actually import, it is part of export-import. If you sell it to another importer and make a profit on that the premium, it is not export profit. It is simple business profit because the income you earn is not in foreign exchange, it is in Indian rupees. It does not arise out of export activity or import activity. It arises because you are trading in a "License", which has a premium in the market. So, the department took the view that it does not fall under section 28 read with section 80HHC. I am not going into the sub sections. Therefore, this is not to be counted as exempted export profit. This must be added back as taxable profit. The assessee took a different view…. In appeal, the ITAT has observed that the same falls under section 28(iv)f not under section 28(iii)(b) or (iii)(c). It falls under section 28(iv). Then, the Tribunal gave a judgement, which I find as a lawyer difficult to understand. But with great respect to the Tribunal which is entitled to take a view, the Tribunal gave a judgement that although it falls under section 28(iv), it does not fall under section 80HHC ‘Explanation’ (baa)…."
It is apparent from the above speech of the Finance Minister when he is referring to ‘Premium’ on sale of DEPB credits u/s 28 (iiid), he is referring to ‘Profits’ on sale of DEPB credits. The ‘premium’ is nothing but ‘profits’ on sale of DEPB credits. In the other situation, when the DEPB amount is credited to the DEPB, the Finance Minister’s speech is very clear that it is for use against import without paying duty. Therefore, if the exporter uses the credit against the import, the credit will automatically get utilized and there will be no credit in Pass Book to be credited in the P&L account. However, if he does not use the credits during the year, the same is appearing on the credit side of the P&L account and is taxable as ‘income’ and in the subsequent year if it is utilized against imports, then the exporter gets the benefits in the cost and the ‘profits’ go up. Therefore, in such situation exporter is not losing anything as the profit element remains the same in other words, there is no change in taxability of profits from the business. However, if the appellant’s argument is accepted, the taxability will be different in both the years and there will be loss to the revenue if the DEPB credit is not taxed as income.
It is in the background of the above provisions of the law, amendment and Scheme that the moot issue, is there any ‘cost’ of the DEPB credits is to be decided. The discussion in the preceding paras clearly show that to an exporter the DEPB credits have no ‘Cost’. This is amply clear from the FM’s statement reproduced above, i.e. when the DEPB credits are not sold on premium, but used actually in import, it is part of ‘export – import’ and when the same is standing as a credit, it is standing because it is a benefit given to neutralize the incidence of Customs Duty on the import content of the export product, which neutralization is provided by way of grant of duty credit against the export product. This in effect means refund of duty paid and like any other indirect taxes and duty which are refunded to the assessee, it is taxable. The amount is taxable in full because it has no cost. If the argument of the appellant that DEPB credits have indirect or hidden cost is accepted, it will mean there is ‘cost’ in ‘duty paid’ and when the said duty paid is neutralized by way of DEPB credits, it has to be reduced by that cost. 7 can onZiy observe that the imagination of the appellant here has run riot and this submission is nothing but stretching the law to credulity. The principle applicable here is there cannot be any ‘cost’ of ‘cost’. Therefore, to an exporter who has credit in the DEPB the total cost is ‘nil’ and the entire amount realized by way of transfer of DEPB credit entitlement is the ‘profit’ u/s 28(iiid) of the Act and for the computation of deduction u/s 80-HHC of the Act this amount is to be considered under clause (baa) under Explanation of the above section. The Assessing Officer has, therefore, rightly reduced 90% of the amount of Rs. 36,31,887 realised by sale of DEPB entitlements from the profits as per P&L account and increased the profit of the business by an amount of 90% of the sale proceeds of DEPB entitlements in the same proportion as export turnover is to the total turnover.
In regard to the above discussion, it is also worth noting that in the third Proviso to the section 80-HHC of the act, clause (a) therein stipulates a condition that benefits u/s 80HHC on DEPB is allowable only if the assessee has necessary and sufficient evidence to prove that –
-
He had an option to choose either the duty draw back or the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Schemes;
Thus, for the purposes of section 80HHC, treatment to DEPB amount has to be the same way as to the Duty Drawback, which in other words mean when the duty drawback amount u/s 28 (iiic) of the act is ‘income’ and is to be reduced from the total turnover by 90% of the amount and, therefore, for the purposes of deduction u/s 80HHC of the act, profits of the business is to be increased by 90% of the duty drawback amount in the same proportion as export turnover is to the total turnover, the same treatment is to be given to the DEPB credits, because to the exporter, DEPB credit is an option available over the Duty Drawback amount. The ‘Cost’ of DEPB credit like Duty Drawback amount is nil to the exporter. Therefore, when an exporter sells this credit, the entire sale amount is profit and income u/s. 28(iiid) of the act."
7.5 I, therefore, following the above order hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly taken the cost price of the credits of DEPB at Nil. The reliance placed by the appellant on various decisions cited in the submission reproduced above are also not found applicable to the issue in appeal as none of them is on the term "profit" in section 28(iiid) of the act which is the moot point in this ground of appeal. The appeal of the appellant on this ground, accordingly, fails."
5. Before, us, I learned AR contended that section 28(iiid) it was inserted under Chapter V-D by the Taxation Laws (Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1.4.1998. In view of insertion of this provision any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the export and import policy formulated and announced under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,1922 is to be assessed under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". The word used in the section is "profits" and not the "sale proceeds". The sale proceeds represents total consideration received on the transfer while the word "profits" represents the difference between the sale consideration and the cost incurred. Had there been an intention of the Legislature to treat the total sale proceeds on the transfer of DEPB Scheme to be the business profits, the Legislature would have used the words "receipts" or "sale proceeds" on the transfer of DEPB — and not the words "any profit on the transfer of DEPB". The Legislature has clearly used the word "profit", not the "sale consideration". The language of the section is very clear. There is no ambiguity involved. Our attention was drawn towards the extracts from the Finance Minister’s Speech, which was delivered when the aforesaid amendment was placed before the Parliament. It was pointed out that the Hon’ble Finance Minister in his speech stated that the DEPB credit sale is that on your DEPB Passbook, if you have certain credit in your favour, you can import items against the credit without paying duty. It was further stated that, but the assessee can also sell the credit to another importer if he actually imports it as a part of its import-export. If was further stated that, but the assessee can also sell the credit to another import if he actually imports it as a part of its import-export. If you sell it to another importer and make profit. That premium is not export profit. It is a simple business profit as it does not arise out of export activity or import activity. Thus, it was contended that DEPB is nothing but it is a credit given to the assessee for import duty on the raw material used for manufacturing the export goods, therefore, the cost which the assessee has to incur by way of duty is the cost for DEPB and in case the assessee receives more than that cost, there will be profit, otherwise there will be loss. Our attention was also drawn to Duty Entitlements Pass Book Scheme and it was pointed out that the preamble of the Scheme under para 4.3 states that the objective of DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of Customs Duty on the import content of the export product and this is being done by way of granting duty credit against the export product. Under this scheme an exporter may apply for credit, as a specified percentage of FOB value of exports, made in freely convertible currency or the payment made from the Foreign Currency Account of the SEZ unit in case of supply of DTA to SEZ unit. The duty credit under the scheme is calculated by taking into account the deemed import content of the said product as per SION and the basic custom duty payable on such deemed imports. The value addition achieved by export of such product shall also be taken into account while determining the rate of duty credit under the scheme. Thus, it was contended that for getting duty credit there is inbuilt cost incurred by the assessee and the cost in fact is the custom duty paid on the import content of the export product. If the assessee receives more than the custom duty paid on the imports content of the export product, there will be profit, otherwise not.
6. The learned DR, on the other hand, contended that the cost involved in this case is NIL. The assessee has not incurred any cost for getting the DEPB credit and therefore the AO was correct in law in treating the entire sale consideration as the profit earned on the transfer of the Duty Entitlements Pass Book Scheme. It was pointed out that even the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raunaq International v CIT (1998) 231 ITR 106 (Delhi) has held that the premium earned on sale of import entitlement is the income liable to tax Reliance was placed on the decision of the CIT(A) by referring to para 7.4 and 7.5 of the order.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, and perused the material on record along with the order of the tax authorities below. We find that with effect from 1-4-1998 the following clause (iiid) has been inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment)Act, 2005 in section 28 under the head "profit and gains of business or profession" under Chapter V-D of the I.T.Act:
(iiid) any profit on the transfer if the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under the import policy formulated and announced under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992);
From the plain reading of this section it is apparently clear that any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme are chargeable to income tax under the head "profits and gains of Business or profession". We also noted that earlier when clauses (iiia), (iiib) & (iiic) were inserted in section 28 by the Finance Act, 1990, correspondingly section 2(24) which includes definition of the "income" was also amended by inserting clauses (va), (vb) & (vc) in section 2(24) of the Act. The definition of the "income" in section 2(24) is inclusive definition. It adds certain artificial categories to the concept of the income but the natural meaning of the word "income" still remains intact. Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the IT Act unless of course it is exempted under various provisions of the IT Act. The idea behind providing inclusive definition in section 2(24) is not to limit the meaning of the word "income" but to widen it. The word "income" therefore is of widest amplitude and it must be given its natural and grammatic meaning. Wherever, the Legislature wanted to treat any receipt, which, in fact, can not be regarded in natural parlance as income, it had included the same u/s 2(24). Section 2(24) was not amended by the Legislature when clause (iiid) was inserted u/s 28. The word "profit" is synonymous to the word "income". Generally whenever the word "profit" is used, it is understood to represent the "income". Therefore, we are of the view that the Legislature has not amended Section 2(24) to enlarge the scope of the word "income". The word "profit" is quite distinct and distinguishable from the word "sale consideration". The "profit" is the net result of the "sale consideration" less the cost of acquisition of the DEPB. We have gone through the speech of the Finance Minister, copy of which was filed before us, while speaking on the proposed amendments before the Parliament. The Hon’ble Finance Minister in the speech has clearly stated that the premium on the transfer of DEPB is to be treated as income from business. Nowhere the Finance Minister has stated that the receipt from the DEPB is to be treated as profit from the transfer of DEPB. We have also gone through the Foreign Trade Policy in which Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme is given. We noted that clause 4.3 of this Scheme states that the objective of DEPB is to neutralize the incidence of Customs Duty on the import content of the export product. In this policy, it is stated that the neutralization shall be provided by way of grant of duty credit against the export product. Therefore, whenever an exporter makes exports of the product in which the imported goods are used and the assessee has paid the Customs Duty on the import of this input, the assessee is entitled for the credit of the duty paid. The method of calculation of the credit is given under the Scheme. Therefore, in our opinion, whatever credit the assessee gets at the time of export of the goods under this Scheme, it represents the cost incurred by the assessee for obtaining the Duty Entitlement credit. We also noted that under the policy, DEPB is freely transferable. On such transfer, the transferee gets certain consideration. The whole of the consideration so received can not be regarded to be the profit on the transfer of such DEPB. The consideration so received represents only the sale consideration on the sale of DEPB. The Finance Minister also states in his speech in this regard as under:
"Now, the Department’s interpretation is that DEPB credit sale – I will explain what it is – is not export profit. What is a DEPB credit sale? A DEPB credit sale is, that on your DEPB Passbook, if you have certain credits in your favour, you can import items against the credit without paying duty. But you can also sell the credit to another importer. If you actually import, it is part of export-import. If you sell it to another importer and make a profit on that – the premium, it is not export profit".
The consideration received on the transfer of DEPB credit cannot be regarded to be the profit on the transfer of DEPB credit. The intention of the Legislature also appears to be the same. If the Legislature wanted to treat the consideration received on the transfer of DEPB to be the income of the assessee, the Legislature would have amended the section 2(24) along with section 28. Even in natural parlance also the sale consideration received cannot be treated to be the profit on the transfer of DEPB. The words "sale consideration" and "profit" are not synonymous. The profit is always computed after deducting the cost out of the sale consideration. We have also gone through the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raunq International (supra) relied upon by the learned DR. We find that the case relied upon by the learned DR is not applicable to the facts of the case. In that case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the amendment made under clause (iiia) in section 28 of the Act and has observed that according to this section, proceeds of sale of licence granted under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, is income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". In this case, the Hon’ble High Court has further observed that an amendment has also been effected in the definition of income in clause 2(24) by insertion of sub-clause (va) whereby any sum chargeable under clause (iiia) of section 28 is included in the definition of "income". Thus, it was held that the premium earned by the assessee on the transfer of import entitlements is income liable to tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". This judgement rather supports our view. We have also pointed out in the preceding paragraphs that there is no amendment in section 2(24) so as to treat the sale proceeds on the transfer of DEPB as the income.
We have also examined how the accounting entries are being passed so as to ascertain whether there is cost involved or not. This is being dealt with as under:-
When assessee makes an application for aforesaid licence to Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Government of India, Ministry of Commerce the assessee recognizes the export benefits as its income by passing following entry:
The value of licence is Rs.1,00,000
DEPB Receivable account Dr. 1,00,000
TO DEPB income account 1,00,000
When assessee receives such licence from DGFT, it passes following accounting entry:
DEPB balance on hand/DEPB 1,00,000
To DEPB Receivable account Cr. 1,00,000
Note :
-
Some times assessee may pass accounting entry for recognization of income only when it receives such licence from Government.
-
The income is recognized in respect of the reimbursement of duty component in the DEPB scheme.
-
The balance of import entitlements are shown as part of Current Assets, Loans & Advances.
After receipt of DEPB licence, assessee can import raw materials without payment of duty to the extent of amount mentioned in such licence. Whenever assessee makes duty free import by utilization of such licence, in the bill of entry alongwith the quantity of raw material imported, number of DEPB licence in which assessee has imported such material has been mentioned. On the import of such raw material, assessee passes the following accouting entry in the financial statements for duty saved on import of such materials by utilization of advance licence.
Import Custom Duty/Account Dr.1,00,000
To DEPB balance on hand/DEPB Account 1,00,000
Note
(1) Account of import custom duty is debited by similar amount by which income from DEPB has been recognized at the time of receipt of license.
It may happen that assessee may not require such license for import of materials and it sell such license in open market at premium or at discount. The following accounting entry is passed when such license is sold in market.
i) The value of license is Rs. 1,00,000 and it is sold in open market of premium of Rs. 10,000.
Party account Dr. 1, 10,000
To DEPB balance on hand/DEPB 1,00,000
To Profits (loss) on sale of DEPB 10,000
Note
While preparing financial statements, assessee will show both the reimbursement of duty component in the DEPB scheme being Rs. 1,00,000 and profit on sale of DEPB being Rs. 10,000 aggregating to Rs. 1,10,000 as income under head "DEPB INCOME" in Profit and loss account and correspondingly Profit and Loss a/c be debited by Duty Component if not already debited through Import/Custom duty a/c.
The aforesaid accounting entries also prove that the DEPB license involves cost to the extent custom duty paid on the import content of export product.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that it is only the profit on the transfer of DEPB Scheme which is chargeable to tax under the head "income from business or profession". Therefore, while computing the profit of the business under Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC, 90% of the profits on the transfer of DEPB should be excluded, not the total amount received by the assessee on the transfer of DEPB credit. The cost of acquisition in the case of DEPB credit can not be NIL but it will be the credit value given to the assessee under the scheme as that represents the incidence of the custom duty on the import content of the export product which the assessee has already paid at the time of import. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is set aside on this issue and the AO is directed to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 80HHC after re-computing it in the above manner. Thus, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed:
8. The second ground which relates to the export premium income of Rs. 77,372/-. After carefully considering the rival submissions, we find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC), in which it was held:
-
that since the sales were to the export house the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 80HHC did not apply to the case of the assessee. Only the provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 80 HHC applied.
-
That on a plain construction of section 80 HHC(1A), which was applicable to this case, the assessee was clearly entitled to claim deduction in respect of the premium amount received from the export house in computing the total income. The export house premium could be included in the business profit because it was an integral part of business operation of the assessee which consisted of sale of goods by the assessee to the export house."
We accordingly direct the AO to treat the export premium income received by the assessee in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Order pronounced in the open court today on 16/01/2008.
|
Sd/- (D T GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER |
Sd/- (P K BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER |
Date:16.01.2008
Similar decisions have been given by the Hon’ble Courts as per the list given below:
|
ITA Nos. 70 and 71/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Years : - 2001-02 and 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s Economic Traders (Guj) Pvt. Limited., 3rd Floor Sterling Apartment Jawahar Road, Rajot (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1 Rajkot (Respondent) Shri D M Rindani, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.61/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2003-2004) V/s |
|
M/s Venu International Thanagalol, Jetpur (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Rajkot (Respondent) Shri G R Sanghvi, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.59 and 60/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004) V/s |
|
|
M/s Rolex Industries C/o Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd. Gondal Road, Village Kotharia, Dist. Rajkot (Appellant)
Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1 Rajkot (Respondent) Shri R D Lalchandani Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.14 and 15/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2000-01 and 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s Rupam International B/8 GIDC, Shanker Tekri Jamnagar (Appellant)
Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.10/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s Salet Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd N M Chatralay Bldg. Sudama Road Porbandar (Appellant)
Appellant by : Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2 Jamnagar (Respondent) None Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
|
ITA No.09/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04 V/s |
|
|
M/s Silver Sea Foods Post Box No.96, Jawar Naka, Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2, Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.07/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s . Amrut Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Shriji Krupa Avinash Society, Opp: Circuit House Area Chowpati Road, Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by ` Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2 Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.509/RJT/2006 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s . Hiravati Ice & Cold Storage, Jawar Naka. Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2,Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
|
ITA No.510/RJT/2006 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s. Hiravati Marin Products Pvt. Ltd. Jawar Naka, Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2, Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
|
ITA No.508/RJT/2006 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
|
M/s . Amar Cold Storage Jawar Naka Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–2, Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri M P Sarda, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.62, 63, 64 and 65/RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 1999-00, 2000-01, 2002-03 & 2003-04) V/s |
|
|
M/s. Avani Exports B/h New Lion School Junagadh Road, Jetpur (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle–1, Rajkot (Respondent) Shri G R Sanghvi, CA Shri Satya Prakash, DR |
|
ITA No.39 and 40 /RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2002-03 and 2003-04) V/s |
|
M/s . Sagar Foods 715/716, GIDC, Somnath Road, Veraval (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Junagadh (Respondent) Shri D M Rindani, CA Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
|
ITA No.36 and 37 /RJT/2007 (Asstt. Year: 2002-03 and 2003-04) V/s |
|
|
M/s .Bhavani Sea Foods 12/13 Fisheries Harbor Bhidiya Plot, Veraval (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3),Veraval (Respondent) Shri D M Rindani, CA Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
|
ITA No.443/RJT/2006 (Asstt. Year: 2003-04) V/s |
|
|
M/s . Siddique Sea Food Fish Market Porbandar (Appellant) Appellant by Respondent by |
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jamnagar (Respondent) Shri D M Rindani, CA Shri Jai Rajkumar, DR |
