Gujrat High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Amba Impex
High Court
18 Feb 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Gujrat High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Amba Impex
Date of order
18 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Gujrat High Court In The Case Of Cit v. Amba Impex, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the question as framed does not arise and consequently, appeal stands summarily dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1249 OF 2007
The CIT-20 )..Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Amber Exports (India) )..Respondents
----
Mr.R.Ashokan for the appellant.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 18.2.2009.
PC
1. The substantial question of law as framed in the
appeal memo is as follows :-
(a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in rejecting the appeal of the revenue and holding that the receipt by way of exchange rate fluctuation is includible in the total turnover of the assessee for computing
by way of exchange rate fluctuation is includible in the total turnover of the assessee for computing deductions U/s.80 HHC ?
2. The above question has been answered by the
Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amba Impex
reported in [2006] 282 ITR 144 (Guj). The Gujrat
High Court has observed as under :-
. "Under sub-section (2) of section 80HHC of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India and received in convertible foreign exchange become entitled to the deduction subject to the fulfilment of other requisite conditions. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80HHC of the Act provides that such sale proceeds have to be received in convertible foreign exchange within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or, within such further period
as the competent authority may allow in this behalf.
Thus, a plain reading of the provision makes it
clear that once the competent authority has extended
the time, in a case where it is necessary, or, where
the sale proceeds have been received within a period
of six months from the end of the previous year,
such sale proceeds are directly relatable to the
exports made and no further inquiry is necessary.
The Legislature in its wisdom has taken into
consideration the fact that in the case of exports
made, sale proceeds are not necessarily realisable
immediately within the accounting period in which
exports have been made. As a corollary, by the time
such sale proceeds are received within the
prescribed time, by virtue of exchange rate
difference there might be a situation where a larger
amount is received than the amount as reflected in
the shipping bill. Hence, merely because an amount
is received in a year subsequent to the year of
export by way of exchange rate difference, it does
not necessarily always follow that the same is not
relatable to the exports made."
2. On the aforesaid reasoning the Gujrath High
Court accepted the contention that the amount
received by way of exchange rate fluctuation cannot
be considered to be "any other receipt" as
stipulated in clause-(bba) of the explanation to
section 80HHC 4(C). The reasoning is that once a
Legislature has provided for treating a receipt
within a period of six months after the end of the
previous year or within further extended period, as
sale proceeds relatable to exports, it would not be
open to the Revenue to raise such a contention. We
respectfully concur with the findings of the Gujrath
High Court.
3. In this view of the matter, the question as framed does not arise and consequently, appeal stands summarily dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.