Rahul Mehta v. The Commissioner of Income-tax
[Citation -2015-LL-1120-11]
| Citation | 2015-LL-1120-11 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Rahul Mehta |
| Respondent Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 20/11/2015 |
| Assessment Year | 1995-96 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | export business |
| Bot Summary: | This appeal by the Assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against an order dated 3rd March 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 5324/D/98 pertaining to the Assessment Year 1995-96. While admitting this appeal on 23rd February 2014, the following question was framed by the Court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total ITA No. 467 of 2003 Page 1 of 3 turnover in Section 80HHC of the Act is only the turnover relating to the export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee 3. Learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Padmini Technologies 245 CTR 611. A similar question was answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that the Assessee had two distinct business activities through two separate proprietary concerns - one relating to the export business and the other relating to trading in shares. Going by the ratio of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Padmini Technologies, it is plain that the turnover pertaining to the share business could not be included for the purposes of determining the 'total turnover' of the export business for the purposes of Section 80HHC(1) of the Act read with Section 80HHC(3) of the Act. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. |