The Commissioner Of Income Tax Valsad v. Ecoplast Limited....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1053/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1053 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ==================================== ==================================== THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VALSAD....Appellant(s) Versus ECOPLAST LIMITED....Opponent(s) ==================================== Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1==================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 19/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the department has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. While admitting the matter, this Court has framed following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the excise duty and sales will not be included in the total turnover while calculating the deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in directing not to exclude the amounts of Rs.1,92,880/- being exchange rate difference relating to export sales of earlier years from the profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC?” 2.The questions of law raised in this appeal had come up for consideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1052 of 2007. consideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1052 of 2007. This Court, while deciding the said identical case by order 18/03/2014, relying on a decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 884 of 2006 and allied matters qua question No. 1 and a decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Priyanka Gems, reported in [2014] 367 ITR 567 in Tax Appeal No. 1355 of 2005 qua question No. 2, has observed in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 as under: “2.It is an agreed position that question 1 is answered against the Revenue by judgment of this Court rendered on December 03, 2013 in the case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Pogagen AMP Nagarsheth Powertronics Ltd. and others while dealing with Tax Appeal No.884 of 2006 and allied matters. Similarly, the question 2 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in a judgment in the case of CIT v. Priyanka Gems, decided on March 12, 2014 while dealing with Tax Appeal No.1355 of 2005. 3.In the result, both the questions are answered against the Revenue. Tax Appeal is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.” 3.There is no dispute amongst both the learned counsels that the aforesaid decision will apply in the facts of this case also, as the facts and the questions of law raised, are identical and therefore, we are not giving elaborate reasons. 4.Accordingly, we answer the questions, “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in holding that the excise duty and sales will not be included in the total turnover while calculating the deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act?” and “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Appellate Tribunal right in directing not to exclude the amounts of Rs.1,92,880/- being exchange rate difference relating to export sales of earlier years from the profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC?”, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly. hiren [ K. S. Jhaveri, J. ][ K. J. Thaker, J. ]