The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Salgaonkar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusM/S. SALGAONKAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ... Appellant... Respondent Mrs. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. M. Sonak with Mr.J. Supekar, Advocates for the Respondent. P.C.:- -Coram:A. S. OKA &F. M. REIS, JJ.-Date:7th July, 2010 We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for theAppellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.This is an Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the impugned order, the Income Tax Tribunal has passed an orderof remand. 2. In the present case, the Respondent - assessee claimeddeduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessment Officer found thatthe assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC in respect ofdollar price difference amounting to Rs.83,79,954/-. The AssessmentOfficer held that, the actual rate at which the goods were exportedshould be taken as the export sale proceeds and any additional benefitaccrued to the assessee on account of foreign currency rate differencecannot be treated as income from the export activity. TheAssessment Officer disallowed the claim of Rs.83,79,954/- beingexchange rate fluctuation of dollar price difference claimed asdeduction under Section 80HHC on the ground that it is not profit and gains of business. The Respondent - assessee preferred anAppeal against the order of the Assessment Officer. The Appeal wasallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). TheCommissioner allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC treatingthe amount of Rs.83,79,954/- as the part of the profits of the exportbusiness. An Appeal was preferred by the Appellant before theTribunal. By the impugned order, the order of Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeal ) was quashed and set aside and the AssessingOfficer has been directed to reconsider the issue in the light of thelaw laid down by the Special Bench in a case of ACIT V/s. PrakashLal Shah (306 ITR 1(AT). While passing an order of remand, theTribunal observed that it is not clear as to whether the amount wasreceived by the Respondent - assessee in convertible foreignexchange within the period specified and whether the claim made bythe Respondent - assessee pertains to the exports made in this year ornot. The Assessing Officer has been directed to reconsider thematter. 3. The impugned order of remand does not give rise to anysubstantial questions of law. Hence, there is no merit in the Appealand we dismiss the same accordingly. at* F. M. REIS, J.