Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rubamin Pvt. Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1427 of 2005 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus RUBAMIN PVT. LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 10/10/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ’C’ in ITA No. 1350/A/2000 for the assessment year 1996-97, whereby, the appeal of the ori. Appellant-department was dismissed. 2.This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whetheronthefactsand circumstances and in law the ITAT was right in directing the AO to exclude the sums relatable to sales tax, excise duty as they do not form part of “total turnover” for the purpose of computing the profits derived from export for claiming benefit under section 80HHC of the IT Act?” 3. The brief facts of the present case are that the return of the income was filed by the assessee on 30.11.1996, declaring total income at Rs. 33,28,720/-. The return was accompanied with profit and loss account, audit report. The assessee filed revised return on 21.4.1997 declaring total income at Rs. 31,43,990. This return was further revised by filing a revised return on 5.2.1998, in which, the total income declared at Rs. NIL. All these returns were processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and some return was further revised by filing a revised return on 5.2.1998, in which, the total income declared at Rs. NIL. All these returns were processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act and some adjustments were made therein. Therefore, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued upon the assessee. 4.Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue. In view of the decision reported in [2008] 301 ITR 439 (SC) in the case of B. Desraj vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and the decision reported in [2007] 290 ITR 667 (SC) in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, the present appeal requires to be dismissed because these decisions will enure for the benefit of the assesee as they are fully applicable in the facts of this case. Hence, we are not giving any elaborate reasonings and the question is answered against the appellant-Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora O/TAXAP/1427/2005 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J)