K.mohan & Co (Exports) (Regd v. Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax(Investigation) Circle 29 (1) Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2003 K.Mohan & Co (Exports) (Regd) ..Appellant Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(Investigation) Circle 29 (1) Mumbai . Respondent Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla with Mr.A.K.Jasani for AppellantMr.P.S.Sahadevan for RespondentCORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan andA.V.Nirgude, JJDATE :14th July, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantand heard learned counsel Mr.Sahadevan for therevenue. The above Appeal was admitted on the followingquestion of law : The following substantial question oflaw arises in this appeal :- Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in upholding the stand ofthe Assessing Officer that in computing deduction under section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, the amount ofRs.23,97,976/- being the service chargesearned, commission and brokerage, profiton share trading and the vyaj badlareceived by the appellant ought to beexcluded in arriving at the figure ofprofits of the business ? " 2. Both the learned counsel for the appellant andthe revenue categorically state that as in theinstant case it pertains to Assessment year1989-90, the view taken by this Court in K.K.Doshi& Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax has beenspecifically overruled by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt (2008) 297 ITR 38 (SC) especially in thelight of the CBDT Circular No.621 dated 19.12.1991wherein it is categorically mentioned that theamendment in question with regard to section 80HHCof the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act(No.2) of 1991 would be prospective in nature witheffect from 1.4.1992 and not retrospective innature. In view thereof, the aforesaid questionis answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. { A.V.Nirgude, J } { A.V.Nirgude, J } { Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J } { Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J } { Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J }