The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-Xxi, Mumbai Appellant v. M/S. Indexco International

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income-tax,City-XXI, MumbaiAppellant vs. M/s. Indexco International Respondent Mr. K. R. Chaudhary with Ms. S. V. Bharucha i/b. Mr. H. D. Rathod forthe appellant. Ms. V. B. Patel for the respondent. CORAM :R.M. LODHA &J. P. DEVADHAR,JJ. P.C.: Date :12[h] August 2004 Heard. 2.In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kantilal Chhotalal, 246 ITR 439, the Division Bench of this Court held thus: “In fact, by the proviso in clause (ba) to theExplanation, it is further provided that the expression“total turnover” shall have effect so as to exclude section 28 (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) which refer to, interalia, profits on sale of a licence granted under theImport (Control) Order, cash assistance, duty drawback,etc. This exclusion also shows that the Legislatureclearly intended to exclude all receipts which have nonexus with sale proceeds from export activity. Hence,total turnover cannot include reassortment charges,labour charges, commission, interest, rent or receipts ofsimilar nature. Therefore, total turnover will notinclude receipts like labour charges, reassortmentcharges, etc.” 3.In view of the legal position laid down by the Division Bench ofthis Court in Kantilal Chhotalal (supra) the Income Tax AppellateTribunal cannot be said to have erred in holding that indentingcommission shall not form part of the total turnover while computingdeduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 5.Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R. M. LODHA, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)