{"id":31007,"date":"2007-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-15T04:07:00","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T22:37:00","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4409 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s. Lakshmi Machine Works\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
WITH
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 4411\/2005, 5370\/2005, 5372\/2005, 5939\/2005, 6145\/2005,
\n3037\/2006, 2596\/2006, 917\/2006, 919\/2006, 920\/2006, 1494\/2006, 1495\/2006,
\n3389\/2006, 4572\/2006, 5157\/2006, 3616\/2006, 3911\/2006, 3913\/2006,
\n3615\/2006, 3169\/2006, 4738\/2006, 5688\/2006, 2907\/2006, 3496\/2006,
\n5860\/2006, 165\/2007, 683\/2007, 431\/2007, 991\/2007, 248\/2007, 1162\/2007,
\n163\/2007, 1636\/2007, 1637\/2007, 1529\/2007, 1530\/2007, 1532\/2007, 1533\/2007,
\n1266\/2007, 1536\/2007
\nCivil Appeal No.   2145   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.16085\/2006,
\nCivil Appeal No.   2146   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.16752\/2006,
\nCivil Appeal No.   2147   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.18239\/2006,
\nCivil Appeal No.   2148   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.6633\/2006,
\nCivil Appeal No.   2149   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.3513\/2007,
\nCivil Appeal No.   2150   of 2007 arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.7911\/2007
\n                                          arising out of CC 10725-10726\/2005<\/p>\n
Kapadia, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted in special leave petitions.
\n\tAll the above civil appeals deal with a common
\nquestion of law and, therefore, they are decided together
\nby this judgment.  For the sake of convenience, the facts
\nin C.A. No.4409 of 2005 are mentioned hereinbelow.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the assessment year 1993-94 M\/s. Lakshmi
\nMachine Works (assessee) filed its return of income
\ndeclaring its taxable income of Rs.50.80 lakhs.  On
\n10.6.94 intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income
\nTax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) was sent by the
\nDepartment accepting the returned income.  Later on the
\nDepartment issued notice under Section 143(2) of the
\nAct.  One of the items for issuing the said notice was the
\nquantum of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.
\nThe assessee had computed the allowable deduction
\nunder Section 80HHC without taking into account in the
\ntotal turnover the sales tax and excise duty.  The
\nassessee was asked to explain why the total turnover
\nshould not be recomputed by including sales tax and
\nexcise duty.  In this connection, the Department placed
\nreliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M\/s.
\nChowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T. West
\nBengal<\/a>  [1973] 83 ITR 542(SC).  The assessee objected
\nto the above inclusion.  However, that objection was
\ndismissed by the A.O. on the ground that under Section
\n80HHC(ba) deduction from “total turnover” was restricted
\nonly to three items, namely, profit on sale of import
\nlicence, duty drawback and CCS.  The A.O. further held
\nthat from the profits of business, the assessee was
\nentitled to deduct the above three items and also
\nbrokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any
\nother receipt of similar nature.  Before the A.O., the
\nassessee contended that items which cannot be regarded
\nas profits, the question of treating those items as part of
\n“total turnover” did not arise.  The A.O. treated certain
\nmiscellaneous receipts and interest receipts as part of
\nbusiness profits to which the assessee objected.  The
\nassessee pointed out that under Section 80HHC as it
\nstood in the assessment year 1993-94, a deduction of
\n10% was allowed whereas the balance 90% stood
\nexcluded from the business profits.  However, the
\nassessee’s argument for non-inclusion of sales tax and
\nexcise duty was not accepted by the A.O.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the above decision, the matter was
\ncarried in appeal to the C.I.T. (Appeals).  The appellate
\nauthority agreed with the submissions made on behalf of
\nthe assessee.  It was held that sales tax and excise duty
\nwere liabilities of the assessee to the Government.  They
\nwere shown separately from the value of the goods,
\ntherefore, they were not included in the “total turnover”
\nfor working out the deduction under Section 80HHC.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the said decision, the Department
\ncarried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal.  Following
\nthe judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
\nCommissioner of Income-Tax v. Sudarshan Chemicals
\nIndustries Ltd. and<\/a> another  (2000) 245 ITR 769
\n(Bom.), the Department’s appeal stood dismissed.  Hence,
\nthis civil appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe short point which arises for consideration in
\nthis civil appeal is: whether excise duty and sales tax
\nwere includible in the “total turnover”, which was the
\ndenominator in the formula contained in Section
\n80HHC(3) as it stood in the material time.  For the sake
\nof convenience we quote hereinbelow Section 80HHC:
\n“Deduction in respect of profits retained for export
\nbusiness.\n<\/p>\n
80HHC. (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian
\ncompany or a person (other than a company) resident
\nin India, is engaged in the business of export out of
\nIndia of any goods or merchandise to which this section
\napplies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to
\nthe provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing
\nthe total income of the assessee, a deduction of the
\n[profits] derived by the assessee from the export of
\nsuch goods or merchandise :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that if the assessee, being a holder of an
\nExport House Certificate or a Trading House Certificate
\n(hereafter in this section referred to as an Export House
\nor a Trading House, as the case may be,) issues a
\ncertificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4A),
\nthat in respect of the amount of the export turnover
\nspecified therein, the deduction under this sub-section
\nis to be allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then the
\namount of deduction in the case of the assessee shall
\nbe reduced by such amount which bears to the total
\nprofits derived by the assessee from the export of
\ntrading goods, the same proportion as the amount of
\nexport turnover specified in the said certificate bears to
\nthe total export turnover of the assessee in respect of
\nsuch trading goods.\n<\/p>\n
(1A) Where the assessee, being a supporting
\nmanufacturer, has during the previous year, sold goods
\nor merchandise to any Export House or Trading House in
\nrespect of which the Export House or Trading House has
\nissued a certificate under the proviso to sub-section (1),
\nthere shall, in accordance with and subject to the
\nprovisions of this section, be allowed in computing the
\ntotal income of the assessee, a deduction of the profits
\nderived by the assessee from the sale of goods or
\nmerchandise to the Export House or Trading House in
\nrespect of which the certificate has been issued by the
\nExport House or Trading House.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(a) This section applies to all goods or merchandise,
\nother than those specified in clause (b), if the sale
\nproceeds of such goods or merchandise exported out of
\nIndia are received in, or brought into, India by the
\nassessee other than the supporting manufacturer in
\nconvertible foreign exchange, within a period of six
\nmonths from the end of the previous year or, where the
\nChief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied (for
\nreasons to be recorded in writing) that the assessee is,
\nfor reasons beyond his control, unable to do so within
\nthe said period of six months, within such further period
\nas the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may allow in
\nthis behalf:\n<\/p>\n
(b) This section does not apply to the following goods or
\nmerchandise, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) mineral oil ; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) minerals and ores (other than processed minerals
\nand ores specified in the Twelfth Schedule).
\nExplanation 1.-The sale proceeds referred to in
\nclause (a) shall be deemed to have been received in
\nIndia where such sale proceeds are credited to a
\nseparate account maintained for the purpose by the
\nassessee with any bank outside India with the
\napproval of the Reserve Bank of India.
\nExplanation 2.-For the removal of doubts, it is
\nhereby declared that where any goods or
\nmerchandise are transferred by an assessee to a
\nbranch, office, warehouse or any other establishment
\nof the assessee situate outside India and such goods
\nor merchandise are sold from such branch, office,
\nwarehouse or establishment, then, such transfer
\nshall be deemed to be export out of India of such
\ngoods and merchandise and the value of such goods
\nor merchandise declared in the shipping bill or bill of
\nexport as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 50
\nof the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), shall, for the
\npurposes of this section, be deemed to be the sale
\nproceeds thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1),-\n<\/p>\n
(a) where the export out of India is of goods or
\nmerchandise manufactured or processed by the
\nassessee, the profits derived from such export shall be
\nthe amount which bears to the profits of the business,
\nthe same proportion as the export turnover in respect
\nof such goods bears to the total turnover of the
\nbusiness carried on by the assessee ;\n<\/p>\n
(b) where the export out of India is of trading goods,
\nthe profits derived from such export shall be the
\nexport turnover in respect of such trading goods as
\nreduced by the direct costs and indirect costs
\nattributable to such export ;\n<\/p>\n
(c) where the export out of India is of goods or
\nmerchandise manufactured or processed by the
\nassessee and of trading goods, the profits derived from
\nsuch export shall,-\n<\/p>\n
(i) in respect of the goods or merchandise
\nmanufactured or processed by the assessee,
\nbe the amount which bears to the adjusted
\nprofits of the business, the same proportion as
\nthe adjusted export turnover in respect of such
\ngoods bears to the adjusted total turnover of
\nthe business carried on by the assessee ; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in respect of trading goods, be the export
\nturnover in respect of such trading goods as
\nreduced by the direct and indirect costs
\nattributable to export of such trading goods :
\nProvided that the profits computed under
\nclause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this
\nsub-section shall be further increased by the
\namount which bears to ninety per cent of any
\nsum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being
\nprofits on sale of a licence acquired from any
\nother person), and clauses (iiib) and (iiic) of
\nsection 28, the same proportion as the export
\nturnover bears to the total turnover of the
\nbusiness carried on by the assessee.
\nExplanation.-For the purposes of this sub-
\nsection,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) “adjusted export turnover” means the
\nexport turnover as reduced by the export
\nturnover in respect of trading goods ;\n<\/p>\n
(b) “adjusted profits of the business” means
\nthe profits of the business as reduced by the
\nprofits derived from the business of export out
\nof India of trading goods as computed in the
\nmanner provided in clause (b) of sub-section
\n(3) ;\n<\/p>\n
(c) “adjusted total turnover” means the total
\nturnover of the business as reduced by the
\nexport turnover in respect of trading goods ;\n<\/p>\n
(d) “direct costs” means costs directly
\nattributable to the trading goods exported out
\nof India including the purchase price of such
\ngoods ;\n<\/p>\n
(e) “indirect costs” means costs, not being
\ndirect costs, allocated in the ratio of the export
\nturnover in respect of trading goods to the
\ntotal turnover ;\n<\/p>\n
(f) “trading goods” means goods which are not
\nmanufactured or processed by the assessee.
\n(3A) For the purposes of sub-section (1A), profits
\nderived by a supporting manufacturer from the sale of
\ngoods or merchandise shall be,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) in a case where the business carried on by the
\nsupporting manufacturer consists exclusively of sale
\nof goods or merchandise to one or more Export
\nHouses or Trading Houses, the profits of the business
\n[***] ;\n<\/p>\n
(b) in a case where the business carried on by the supporting
\nmanufacturer does not consist exclusively of sale of goods or
\nmerchandise to one or more Export Houses or Trading
\nHouses, the amount which bears to the profits of the business
\n[***] the same proportion as the turnover in respect of sale to
\nthe respective Export House or Trading House bears to the
\ntotal turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.
\n(4) The deduction under sub-section (1) shall not be
\nadmissible unless the assessee furnishes in the
\nprescribed form, along with the return of income, the
\nreport of an accountant, as defined in the Explanation
\nbelow sub-section (2) of section 288, certifying that the
\ndeduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with
\nthe provisions of this section:\n<\/p>\n
(4A) The deduction under sub-section (1A) shall not be
\nadmissible unless the supporting manufacturer
\nfurnishes in the prescribed form along with his return of
\nincome,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) the report of an accountant, as defined in the
\nExplanation below sub-section (2) of section 288,
\ncertifying that the deduction has been correctly
\nclaimed on the basis of the profits of the supporting
\nmanufacturer in respect of his sale of goods or
\nmerchandise to the Export House or Trading House ;
\nand\n<\/p>\n
(b) a certificate from the Export House or Trading
\nHouse containing such particulars as may be
\nprescribed and verified in the manner prescribed that
\nin respect of the export turnover mentioned in the
\ncertificate, the Export House or Trading House has
\nnot claimed the deduction under this section :
\nProvided that the certificate specified in clause (b)
\nshall be duly certified by the auditor auditing the
\naccounts of the Export House or Trading House
\nunder the provisions of this Act or under any other
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) “convertible foreign exchange” means foreign
\nexchange which is for the time being treated by
\nthe Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign
\nexchange for the purposes of the Foreign
\nExchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), and
\nany rules made thereunder;\n<\/p>\n
(aa) “export out of India” shall not include any
\ntransaction by way of sale or otherwise, in a shop,
\nemporium or any other establishment situate in
\nIndia, not involving clearance at any customs
\nstation as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
\n1962) ;\n<\/p>\n
(b) “export turnover” means the sale proceeds,
\nreceived in, or brought into, India by the assessee
\nin convertible foreign exchange in accordance
\nwith clause (a) of sub-section (2) of any goods or
\nmerchandise to which this section applies and
\nwhich are exported out of India, but does not
\ninclude freight or insurance attributable to the
\ntransport of the goods or merchandise beyond the
\ncustoms station as defined in the Customs Act,
\n1962 (52 of 1962) ;\n<\/p>\n
(ba) “total turnover” shall not include freight or
\ninsurance attributable to the transport of the
\ngoods or merchandise beyond the customs station
\nas defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962):
\nProvided that in relation to any assessment year
\ncommencing on or after the 1st day of April,
\n1991, the expression “total turnover” shall have
\neffect as if it also excluded any sum referred to in
\nclauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28 ;
\n(baa) “profits of the business” means the profits
\nof the business as computed under the head
\n“Profits and gains of business or profession” as
\nreduced by-\n<\/p>\n
(1) ninety per cent of any sum referred to in
\nclauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28 or of
\nany receipts by way of brokerage, commission,
\ninterest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a
\nsimilar nature included in such profits ; and
\n(2) the profits of any branch, office, warehouse or
\nany other establishment of the assessee situate
\noutside India ;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\t“Export House Certificate” or “Trading House
\nCertificate” means a valid Export House Certificate
\nor Trading House Certificate, as the case may be,
\nissued by the Chief Controller of Imports and
\nExports, Government of India ;\n<\/p>\n
(d) “supporting manufacturer” means a person
\nbeing an Indian company or a person (other than
\na company) resident in India, manufacturing
\n(including processing) goods or merchandise and
\nselling such goods or merchandise to an Export
\nHouse or a Trading House for the purposes of
\nexport.”                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tA brief analysis of the above Section 80HHC of the
\nAct, as amended with effect from 1.4.1992, indicates
\nrationalization of provisions relating to tax concession for
\nexport profits.  Under Section 80HHC, the exporters were
\nallowed, in the computation of their total income, a
\ndeduction of the entire profits derived from exports.
\nDuring the relevant year, there existed a dual system for
\ncomputation of export profits.  The first method operated
\nin cases where the export was of goods manufactured by
\nthe tax payer.  In those cases the export profit had to be
\ncomputed on the basis of the ratio of “export turnover” to
\n“total turnover”.  In effect, the formula was as follows:
\n80HHC concession = export profits = total profits x export turnover
\n   total turnover
\n\tWhere the export consisted of goods purchased from
\nthird parties (trading goods) there was a second method
\nof computation in which the export profits were to be
\ncalculated by deducting from the export turnover, direct
\nand indirect costs attributable to such exports.  In that
\ncase the formula was as under:\n<\/p>\n
80HHC concession = export profits = export turnover  (costs
\nattributable to such exports)<\/p>\n
By the Finance Act, 1992, one more amendment
\nwas made by which the legislature declared that
\ncommission received on assignment of export orders,
\nbrokerage, interest, rent and items mentioned in Section
\n28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic), should not be treated in toto as
\nprofits of the business relatable to exports and only 10%
\nthereof should be considered as the profit of the business
\nand the balance 90% should not be included in the
\nprofits.  These amendments took place with effect from
\n1.4.92, the date from which the dual system of
\ncomputation of export profits came into effect.\n<\/p>\n
All assessable entities were not eligible for
\ndeduction under Section 80HHC of the Act.  According to
\nSection 80HHC only an Indian company or a non-
\ncompany assessee who was the resident in India was
\neligible for deduction provided he was engaged in the
\nexport business of eligible goods.  Under the Income Tax
\nRules, 1962, Form No.10CCAC was prescribed.  We quote
\nhereinbelow Annexures A & B to the said Form 10CCAC:
\n“FORM NO.10CCAC
\n[See rule 18BBA(3)]
\nReport under section *80HHC(4)\/80HHC(4A) of the Income-tax
\nAct, 1961<\/p>\n
1.\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
2.\t(a) *I\/We certify that the deduction to be claimed
\nby the assessee under sub-section (1) of Section
\n80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the
\nassessment year.is Rs. which has
\nbeen determined on the basis of the sale proceeds
\nreceived by the assessee in convertible foreign
\nexchange.  The said amount has been worked out on
\nthe basis of the details in Annexure A to this Form.\n<\/p>\n
(b) \t*I\/We certify that the deduction to be claimed by
\nthe assessee, as supporting manufacturer, under sub-
\nsection (1A) of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act,
\n1961, in respect of the assessment year.. is
\nRs…, which has been determined on the basis
\nof sales to Export House\/Trading House* made during
\nthe year, in respect of which a certificate has been
\nissued by the Export House\/Trading House under the
\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 80HHC of the
\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.  The said amount has been
\nworked out on the basis of the details in Annexure B
\nto this Form.<\/p>\n
\n\n3.\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx\n\n\nDate.\t\t\t\t\t\tSigned\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAccountant\n\nNotes:\t\txxx\t\txxx\t\txx\n\nANNEXURE A\n<\/pre>\n
[See paragraph 2(a) of Form No.10CCAC]
\nDetails relating to the claim by the exporter for
\ndeduction under section 80HHC of the Income-
\ntax Act, 1961<\/p>\n
1.\tName of the assessee\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAssessment year\n<\/p>\n
3.\tTotal turnover of the business\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTotal export turnover\n<\/p>\n
5.\tTotal profits of the business\n<\/p>\n
6.\tExport turnover in respect of trading goods\n<\/p>\n
7.\tDirect cost of trading goods exported\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIndirect cost attributable to trading goods
\nexported\n<\/p>\n
9.\tTotal of 7 + 8\n<\/p>\n
10.\tProfits from export of trading goods [6 minus 9]\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAdjusted total turnover (3 minus 6)\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAdjusted export turnover (4 minus 6)\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAdjusted profits of the business (5 minus 10)\n<\/p>\n
14.\tProfits derived by  assessee from export of goods
\nor merchandise to which section 80HHC applies,
\ncomputed under sub-section (3) of section
\n80HHC\n<\/p>\n
15.\tExport turnover, deduction in respect of which
\nwill be claimed by a supporting manufacturer in
\naccordance with proviso to sub-section (1) of
\nsection 80HHC\n<\/p>\n
16.\tProfit from the export turnover mentioned in
\nitem 15 above, calculated in accordance with
\nproviso to sub-section (1) of section 80HHC\n<\/p>\n
17.\tDeduction under section 80HHC to which the
\nassessee is entitled (Item 14 minus Item 16)\n<\/p>\n
18.\tRemarks, if any<\/p>\n
ANNEXURE B<\/p>\n
[See paragraph 2(b) of Form No.10CCAC]
\nDetails relating to the claim of the supporting
\nmanufacturer for deduction under section
\n80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961<\/p>\n
SECTION A<\/p>\n
1.\tName of the assessee\n<\/p>\n
2.\tassessment year\n<\/p>\n
3.\tTotal turnover of the business\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe amount of profit under the head “Profits and
\ngains of business of profession”\n<\/p>\n
5.\tTotal turnover in respect of sale of Export
\nHouse\/Trading House for which certificate is
\nreceived from Export House\/Trading House\n<\/p>\n
6.\tProfit from the turnover mentioned in item 5
\nabove, computed under sub-section (3A) of
\nsection 80HHC\n<\/p>\n
7.\tRemarks, if any<\/p>\n
SECTION B
\nDetails of sale of Export House\/Trading House<\/p>\n
SL
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
Name and
\naddress of the
\nExport
\nHouse\/Trading
\nHouse to
\nwhom goods or
\nmerchandise
\nwere sold
\nSale
\nInvoice
\nNo.\n<\/p>\n
and
\ndate
\nSale
\nprice
\nInvoice No.
\nand date by
\nwhich Export
\nHouse\/Trading
\nHouse has
\nexported
\nDate of
\ncertificate
\nissued by
\nthe
\nExport
\nhouse\/
\nTrading
\nHouse
\nunder
\nclause (b)
\nof sub-\n<\/p>\n
section
\n(4A) of
\nsection
\n80HHC
\nAmount
\nof
\ndisclaimer
\n1<\/span>
\n2<\/span>
\n3<\/span>
\n4<\/span>
\n5<\/span>
\n6<\/span>
\n7<\/span><\/p>\n
ACTION POINTS\n<\/p>\n
1.\tReport is to be filed along with return of income.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t“Total turnover” does not include cash compensatory
\nsupport, duty drawback and profit on sale of import
\nentitlement licences.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t“Export turnover” means the sale proceeds (excluding freight
\nand insurance) receivable in convertible foreign exchange
\nSee Circular No.564, dated 5-7-1990.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tReport is to be obtained in respect of each year for which
\ndeduction is claimed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAnalysing the above formula, as it stood at the
\nrelevant time, it is clear that the amount of deduction
\nunder Section 80HHC had to be computed as under:
\nBusiness profit x export turnover w total turnover + 90 per cent of
\nexport incentive x export turnover w total turnover <\/p>\n
\tTherefore, in the above formula there were three
\nconcepts, namely, “business profit”, “export turnover”
\nand “total turnover”.  The first step was to find out the
\nbusiness profit.  This was to be done in accordance with
\nthe provisions of Section 28 to Section 43 of the Act.
\nUnder Section 80HHC the above three export incentives,
\nnamely, CCS, duty drawback and profit on sale of import
\nlicence, were includible in the “business profits” and,
\ntherefore, they were taxable.  The Finance Act, 1992,
\nrestricted the term “export turnover” to FOB sale
\nproceeds.  However, the said Act excluded CCS, Duty
\nDrawback and profit on sale of import entitlement from
\nthe term “total turnover”.\n<\/p>\n
To sum up, the amount of deduction under Section
\n80HHC is to be computed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“1.   Profit of the business  To find out “profit of
\nthe business”, the first step is to determine
\nincome under the head “Profits and gains of
\nbusiness or profession” [as per section
\n28(iiia), (iiib), (iiic) this includes three export
\nincentives.  From the income so arrived at,
\ndeduct the following:\n<\/p>\n
a.    90 per cent of export incentive.\n<\/p>\n
b.\t90 per cent of receipts by way of
\nbrokerage, commission, interest, rent,
\ncharges or other receipts of a similar
\nnature; and
\nc.  profits of any branch, office, warehouse or
\nany similar establishment of the assessee
\nsituate outside India.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tExport turnover  Sale proceeds received in, or
\nbrought into India, in convertible foreign
\nexchange within the prescribed time (or within
\nthe extended time limit) minus freight and
\ninsurance attributable to the transportation of
\ngoods\/merchandise beyond the customs
\nstation is export turnover for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tTotal turnover  From the turnover (as per
\nbooks of account) the following should be
\ndeducted if these are part of turnover:\n<\/p>\n
a.\tfreight\/insurance attributable to the
\ntransport of goods or merchandise
\nbeyond customs station in India; and
\nb.\texport incentives.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tExport incentives –  Export incentives are:\n<\/p>\n
a.\tprofits on sale of a licence granted
\nunder the Imports (Control) Order, 1955
\nmade under the Imports and Exports
\n(Control) Act, 1947 [sec.28(iiia)];
\nb.\tcash assistance (by whatever name
\ncalled) received or receivable by any
\nperson against exports under any
\nscheme of the Government of India
\n[sec.28(iiib)];\n<\/p>\n
c.\tany duty of customs or excise re-paid or
\nre-payable as drawback to any person
\nagainst exports under the Customs and
\nCentral Excise Duties Drawback Rules,
\n1971 [sec.28(iiic)].”\n<\/p>\n
 To simplify the matter we quote hereinbelow
\nparagraph 107.13-3P1 of the Direct Taxes Ready
\nReckoner by Taxmann for the year 1993-94:\n<\/p>\n
“107.13-3P1 X Ltd. is engaged in manufacturing
\nand\/or processing of heavy chemical for export.  For
\nthe year ending March 31, 1993, the summarized
\nprofit and loss account is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                  Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Expenses     32,60,000\nNet profit     10,30,000\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                   __________\n                   42,90,000\n\nTotal turnover (of goods \nexported)                          30,50,000\nFreight and insurance \nattributable to transport\nof goods beyond customs \nstation                               2,40,000\nExport incentive under \n<\/pre>\n
Section 28(iiia), (iiib),(iiic)   6,50,000
\nBrokerage, commission,
\nrent, interest                       2,70,000
\nProfit of foreign branch           80,000
\n                                         42,90,000<\/p>\n
Other information\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.\tOut of total expenses of Rs.32,60,000 debited to
\nprofit and loss account, Rs.51,600 is not deductible
\nby virtue of sections 40 and 40A.  The balance
\namount is, however, deductible.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tOn January 13, 1993, Rs.86,920 is paid on
\naccount of excise duty of the previous year 1991-\n<\/p>\n
92.  Since this amount pertains to the previous
\nyear 1991-92, it has not been debited to the
\naforesaid profit and loss account.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe company has received Rs.24,90,000 in
\nconvertible foreign exchange till September 30,
\n1993.  The company’s application for obtaining
\nextension of time under section 80HHC has been
\nrejected by the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tDuring the previous year 1992-93, the company
\ngets a short-term gain of Rs.20,000.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe company is entitled for deduction under
\nsection 80-I.\n<\/p>\n
Compute the net income of the company for the
\nassessment year 1993-94.\n<\/p>\n
Profits and gains of business of profession:\n<\/p>\n
      Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Net profit as P & L account
\nAdd: Amount not deductible by virtue of secs.40 and 40A
\n      10,30,000
\n           51,600<\/p>\n
Less: Excise duty of 1991-92, deductible by virtue of
\nsection 43B [see para 49.10]
\n      10,81,600
\n(-)        86,920
\nBusiness income (under section 28)
\nCapital gains
\n        9,94,680
\n           20,000
\nGross total income
\n      10,14,680
\nLess: Deduction
\nUnder section 80HHC [see Note]
\nUnder section 80-I [i.e., 25% of Rs.9,94,680]
\nNet income (rounded off)<\/p>\n
        5,48,355
\n        2,48,670
\n        2,17,660
\nNote: Computation of deduction under section 80HHC\n<\/p>\n
1. Profit of the business –  It will be calculated as follows:
\nIncome under the head “Profits and gains of business or
\nprofession”\n<\/p>\n
        9,94,680
\nLess:\n<\/p>\n
90% of export incentives (i.e., 90% of Rs.6,50,000)
\n90% of brokerage, commission, rent and interest (i.e.,
\n90% of Rs.2,70,000)
\nProfit of the foreign branch
\nProfit of the business<\/p>\n
(-)     5,85,000<\/p>\n
(-)     2,43,000
\n(-)        80,000
\n           86,680<\/p>\n
2. Export turnover  It is Rs.24,90,000 being the
\nbrought to India (within the time limit), in the
\nconvertible foreign exchange.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Total turnover  It is Rs.30,50,000.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Export incentive  Export incentive is Rs.6,50,000.\n<\/p>\n
Amount of deduction is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
(Rs.86,680 x Rs.24,90,000 w Rs.30,50,000) + (90% of
\nRs.6,50,000 x Rs.24,90,000 w Rs.30,50,000) =
\nRs.5,48,355.\n<\/p>\n
107.13-4 ASSESSEE WHOSE EXPORTS GOODS
\nMANUFACTURED\/PROCESSED BY OTHERS
\nHOW TO FIND OUT DEDUCTION –  This category
\ncovers those assessees who export goods
\nmanufactured\/processed by others:\n<\/p>\n
107.13-4a Conditions  In order to get deduction one
\nhas to satisfy conditions specified in paras 107.13-3a.\n<\/p>\n
107.13-4b Amount of deduction  Deduction under
\nsection 80HHC will be determined as under:
\n(Export turnover1 minus direct cost2 minus indirect
\ncost3) + (90 per cent of export incentive5 x Export
\nturnover w total turnover)<\/p>\n
1.\tExport turnover  Sale proceeds received in, or
\nbrought into India in, convertible foreign
\nexchange within the prescribed time (or within
\nthe extended time limit) minus freight and
\ninsurance attributable to the transportation of
\ngoods\/merchandise beyond the customs
\nstation, is export turnover for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tDirect cost  Under Explanation (d) to section 80
\nHHC(3), “direct costs” comprises the following:
\na.\tthe purchase price of the goods, and
\nb.\tcosts directly attributable to the trading
\ngoods exported out of India.\n<\/p>\n
Purchase price  under the accepted principles of
\naccounting, purchase price would mean invoice
\nvalue, including taxes and duties, as reduced by (i)
\nvalue of any purchase returns, (ii)trade discounts
\nand rebates, if any, allowed, and (iii) value of any
\nincentives which is passed on to the seller.
\nSimilarly, sales tax set-off available in respect of
\nexports can also be reduced from purchase costs.
\nHowever, cash discount obtained any other rebate
\nor set-off available after the end of the relevant
\nprevious year cannot be reduced from purchase
\ncost.  If, as per the terms of the contract, any
\nexport incentives are passed on to the seller, they
\nwould have an effect on purchase price and to that
\nextent purchase cost would be lower.\n<\/p>\n
Costs directly attributable to trading goods  These
\ncosts would generally embrace, apart from the
\npurchase cost and related costs, such other costs
\nwhich have been incurred either in relation to the
\npurchase, or in relation to the transportation or
\nstorage of the goods prior to their export, or in
\nrelation to the movement of goods from the
\nexporter’s godown, premises or warehouse to the
\ncustoms station.  The use of the word “directly”
\nsignifies that there should be a proximate
\nconnection between the costs and the purchase of
\nthe trading goods.  In other words, they should not
\nbe “overhead costs”.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIndirect cost  Under Explanation  (e) to section
\n80HHC(3), the term “indirect costs” means
\ncosts (not being direct costs) allocated in the
\nratio of the export turnover in respect of the
\ntrading goods to the total turnover.  In other
\nwords, indirect cost may be computed as
\nunder: (Total cost minus direct cost) x Export
\nturnover in respect of trading goods1 w Total
\nturnover4.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTotal turnover  From the turnover (as per
\nbooks of account) the following should be
\ndeducted if these are part of turnover:
\na.\tfreight\/insurance attributable to the
\ntransport of goods or merchandise beyond
\ncustoms station in India; and
\nb.\texport incentives.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tExport incentives  Export incentives are:
\na.\tprofits on sale of a licence granted under
\nthe Imports (Control) Order, 1955 made
\nunder the Imports and Exports (Control)
\nAct, 1947 [sec.28(iiia)];\n<\/p>\n
b.\tcash assistance (by whatever name called)
\nreceived or receivable by any person
\nagainst exports under any scheme of the
\nGovernment of India [sec.28 (iiib)];
\nc.\tany duty of customs or excise re-paid or
\nre-payable as drawback to any person
\nagainst exports under the Customs and
\nCentral Excise Duties Drawback Rules,
\n1971 [sec.28(iiic)]”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above examples show that the formula under
\nSection 80HHC was very simple as far as it related to the
\nsole business of exports.  The formula became
\ncomplicated in cases of composite business.  In the case
\nof direct exporter there were three categories of assessees
\n (i) an assessee who exported goods manufactured by
\nhim; (ii) an assessee who did not export goods
\nmanufactured by him but exported goods manufactured
\nby others; and (iii) an assessee who exported
\nmanufactured goods as well as trading goods.  The
\nformula became complicated in the case of the third
\ncategory.  It also became complicated in the cases of an
\nassessee who did not directly export goods but supplied
\ngoods to an Export House\/Trading House for the purpose
\nof export (subordinate manufacturer).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principal reason for enacting the above formula
\nwas to disallow a part of 80HHC concession when the
\nentire deduction claimed could not be regarded as
\nrelatable to exports.  Therefore, while interpreting the
\nwords “total turnover” in the above formula in Section
\n80HHC one has to give a schematic interpretation to that
\nexpression.  There is one more reason for giving
\nschematic interpretation.  The various amendments to
\nSection 80HHC show that receipts by way of brokerage,
\ncommission, interest, rent etc. do not form part of
\nbusiness profits as they have no nexus with the activity
\nof exports.  If interest or rent was not regarded by the
\nlegislature as business profits, the question of treating
\nthe same as part of the total turnover in the above
\nformula did not arise.  In fact, Section 80 HHC had to be
\namended several times since the formula on several
\noccasions gave a distorted figure of export profits when
\nreceipts like interest, rent, commission etc. which did not
\nhave the element of turnover got included in the profit
\nand loss account and consequently became entitled to
\ndeduction.  This was clarified by the above amendment to
\nSection 80HHC commencing from 1.4.92.  The said
\namendment made it clear that though commission and
\ninterest emanated from exports, they did not involve any
\nelement of turnover and merely for the reason that
\ncommission, interest, rent etc. were included in the profit
\nand loss account, they did not become eligible to
\ndeduction.  We have to give purposeful interpretation to
\nthe above section.  The said section is entirely based on
\nthe formula.  The amendments from time to time indicate
\nthat they became necessary in order to make the formula
\nworkable.  Hence, we have to give schematic
\ninterpretation to Section 80HHC of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri P.P. Malhotra, leaned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the Department (appellant), submitted that one has to
\ngive plain and unambiguous meaning to the word
\n“turnover” in the above formula; that there was no need
\nto call for any rule of interpretation or external aid to
\ninterpret the said word; that having regard to the plain
\nwords of the section, excise duty and sales tax ought to
\nhave been included in the “total turnover”.  Learned
\ncounsel submitted that the word “turnover” even in the
\nordinary sense would include the above two items.
\nLearned counsel urged that the formula should be read
\nstrictly.  In this connection, he pointed out that the
\nlegislature had expressly excluded items of freight and
\ninsurance and not sales tax and excise duty from the
\nsaid definition.  It was urged that while construing a
\ntaxing statute strict interpretation should be given by the
\nCourts.  It was urged that the definition of the words
\n“total turnover” did not include freight\/insurance.  He
\nurged that since the legislature had excluded only
\ninsurance and freight, it was not open to the courts to
\nexclude excise duty and sales tax from the concept of
\n“total turnover” in the said formula.  He contended that
\nthe word “turnover” referred to the aggregate amount for
\nwhich the goods were sold and since sales tax and excise
\nduty formed part of the value of the goods, the said two
\nitems were includible in the definition of the words “total
\nturnover”.  In this connection, learned counsel placed
\nreliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
\ncase of M\/s. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (supra).
\nReliance was also placed on “The Law and Practice of
\nIncome Tax” by Kanga and Palkhivala (eighth edition) at
\npage 123.  In support of the contention that a tax or duty
\nis part of the dealer’s trading\/business receipts, even if
\nthe tax or duty is charged separately or credited to a
\nseparate account.  Reliance was also placed on the
\njudgment of the King’s Bench Division in the case of
\nPaprika, Ltd., and Another  v.  Board of Trade –  (1944)
\n1 All E.R. 372, in which it has been held that wherever a
\nsale attracts purchase tax, that tax affects the price
\nwhich the seller who is liable to pay the tax demands, but
\nit does not cease to be the price which the buyer has to
\npay even if the price is expressed as cost x + purchase
\ntax.  Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the
\nCourt of Appeal in the case of Love  v.  Norman Wright
\n(Builders), Ltd.  (1944) 1 All E.R. 618, in which it has
\nbeen held that if a seller quotes a price of ‘x’ + purchase
\ntax, the buyer has to pay the amount of the tax as part of
\nthe price and since the tax is charged on the wholesale
\nvalue of the goods the tax element has to be taken into
\naccount.  It was urged that one has to give strict
\ninterpretation to the word “turnover”.  It was urged that
\nthere was no question of giving purposeful interpretation
\nto the word “turnover” in the said Section 80HHC of the
\nAct.  It was urged that the legislature had used the
\nexpression “total turnover” from which it became clear
\nthat the said expression referred to the aggregate amount
\nfor which the goods were sold and since the above two
\nitems formed part of the value of the goods, they were
\nincludible in the “total turnover”.  Learned counsel urged
\nthat there was no merit in the contention advanced on
\nbehalf of the assessee that excise duty was the liability of
\nthe assessee to the Government and, therefore, it was not
\nincludible in the total turnover.  Learned counsel urged
\nthat there was no merit in the contention advanced on
\nbehalf of the assessee that the components of “export
\nturnover” and “total turnover” should be the same in the
\nabove formula.  Learned counsel submitted that the
\nformula would become unworkable if the components in
\nthe “export turnover” and the components in the “total
\nturnover” are the same.  Learned counsel submitted that
\nthere was no merit in the argument advanced on behalf
\nof the assessee that excise duty and sales tax did not
\nform part of trading receipts.  Learned counsel submitted
\nthat there was no merit in the contention of the assessee
\nthat the expression “business profits” in Section 80HHC
\ndid not include receipts which did not emanate for
\nexports and, therefore, such receipts did not constitute
\nan element of turnover.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe do not find any merit in the above contentions
\nadvanced on behalf of the Department.  It is important to
\nnote that tax under the Act is upon income, profits and
\ngains.  It is not a tax on gross receipts.  Under Section
\n2(24) of the Act the word “income” includes profits and
\ngains.  The charge is not on gross receipts but on profits
\nand gains.  The charge is not on gross receipts but on
\nprofits and gains properly so-called.  Gross receipts or
\nsale proceeds, however, include profits.  According to
\n“The Law and Practice of Income Tax” by Kanga and
\nPalkhivala, the word “profits” in Section 28 should be
\nunderstood in normal and proper sense.  However,
\nsubject to special requirements of the income tax, profits
\nhave got to be assessed provided they are real profits.
\nSuch profits have to be got to be ascertained on ordinary
\nprinciples of commercial trading and accounting.
\nHowever, the income tax has laid down certain rules to
\nbe applied in deciding how the tax should be assessed
\nand even if the result is to tax as profits what cannot be
\nconstrued as profits, still the requirements of the income
\ntax must be complied with.  Where a deduction is
\nnecessary in order to ascertain the profits and gains,
\nsuch deductions should be allowed.  Profits should be
\ncomputed after deducting the expenses incurred for
\nbusiness though such expenses may not be admissible
\nexpressly under the Act, unless such expenses are
\nexpressly disallowed by the Act [SEE: page 455 of “The
\nLaw and Practice of Income Tax” by Kanga and
\nPalkhivala].  Therefore, schematic interpretation for
\nmaking the formula in Section 80HHC workable cannot
\nbe ruled out.  Similarly, purposeful interpretation of
\nSection 80HHC which has undergone so many changes
\ncannot be ruled out, particularly, when those legislative
\nchanges indicate that the legislature intended to exclude
\nitems like commission and interest from deduction on the
\nground that they did not possess any element of
\n“turnover” even though commission and interest
\nemanated from exports.  We have to read the words “total
\nturnover” in Section 80HHC as part of the formula which
\nsought to segregate the “export profits” from the
\n“business profits”.  Therefore, we have to read the
\nformula in entirety.  In that formula the entire business
\nprofits is not given deduction.  It is the business profit
\nwhich is proportionately reduced by the above
\nfraction\/ratio of export turnover w total turnover which
\nconstitute 80HHC concession (deduction).  Income in the
\nnature of “business profits” was, therefore, apportioned.
\nThe above formula fixed a ratio in which “business
\nprofits” under Section 28 of the Act had to be
\napportioned.  Therefore, one has to give weightage not
\nonly to the words “total turnover” but also to the words
\n“export turnover”, “total export turnover” and “business
\nprofits”.  That is the reason why we have quoted
\nhereinabove extensively the illustration from the Direct
\nTaxes (Income tax) Ready Reckoner of the relevant word.
\nIn the circumstances, we cannot interpret the words
\n“total turnover” in the above formula with reference to
\nthe definition of the word “turnover” in other laws like
\nCentral Sales Tax or as defined in accounting principles.
\nGoods for export do not incur excise duty liability.  As
\nstated above, even commission and interest formed a
\npart of the profit and loss account, however, they were
\nnot eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.  They
\nwere not eligible even without the clarification introduced
\nby the legislature by various amendments because they
\ndid not involve any element of turnover.  Further, in all
\nother provisions of the income tax, profits and gains were
\nrequired to be computed with reference to the books of
\naccounts of the assessee.  However, as can be seen from
\nthe Income Tax Rules and from the above Form
\nNo.10CCAC in the case of deduction under Section
\n80HHC a report of the auditor certifying deduction based
\non export turnover was sufficient.  This is because the
\nvery basis for computing Section 80HHC deduction was
\n“business profits” as computed under Section 28, a
\nportion of which had to be apportioned in terms of the
\nabove ratio of export turnover to total turnover.  Section
\n80HHC(3) was a beneficial section.  It was intended to
\nprovide incentives to promote exports.  The incentive was
\nto exempt profits relatable to exports.  In the case of
\ncombined business of an assessee having export
\nbusiness and domestic business the legislature intended
\nto have a formula to ascertain export profits by
\napportioning the total business profits on the basis of
\nturnovers.  Apportionment of profits on the basis of
\nturnover was accepted as a method of arriving at export
\nprofits.  This method earlier existed under Excess Profits
\nTax Act, it existed in the Business Profits Tax Act.
\nTherefore, just as commission received by an assessee is
\nrelatable to exports and yet it cannot form part of
\n“turnover”, excise duty and sales tax also cannot form
\npart of the “turnover”.  Similarly, “interest” emanates
\nfrom exports and yet “interest” does not involve an
\nelement of turnover.  The object of the legislature in
\nenacting Section 80HHC of the Act was to confer a
\nbenefit on profits accruing with reference to export
\nturnover.  Therefore, “turnover” was the requirement.
\nCommission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any
\nturnover.  Therefore, 90% of such commission, interest
\netc. was excluded from the profits derived from the
\nexport.  Therefore, even without the clarification such
\nitems did not form part of the formula in Section
\n80HHC(3) for the simple reason that it did not emanate
\nfrom the “export turnover”, much less any turnover.
\nEven if the assessee was an exclusive dealer in exports,
\nthe said commission was not includible as it did not
\nspring from the “turnover”.  Just as interest, commission
\netc. did not emanate from the “turnover”, so also excise
\nduty and sales tax did not emanate from such turnover.
\nSince excise duty and sales tax did not involve any such
\nturnover, such taxes had to be excluded.  Commission,
\ninterest, rent etc. do yield profits, but they do not partake
\nof the character of turnover and, therefore, they were not
\nincludible in the “total turnover”.  The above discussion
\nshows that income from rent, commission etc. cannot be
\nconsidered as part of business profits and, therefore, they
\ncannot be held as part of the turnover also.  In fact, in
\nCivil Appeal No.4409 of 2005, the above proposition has
\nbeen accepted by the A.O. [See: page no.24 of the paper
\nbook], if so, then excise duty and sales tax also cannot
\nform part of the “total turnover” under Section 80HHC(3),
\notherwise the formula becomes unworkable.  In our view,
\nsales tax and excise duty also do not have any element of
\n“turnover” which is the position even in the case of rent,
\ncommission, interest etc.  It is important to bear in mind
\nthat excise duty and sales tax are indirect taxes.  They
\nare recovered by the assessee on behalf of the
\nGovernment.  Therefore, if they are made relatable to
\nexports, the formula under Section 80HHC would become
\nunworkable.  The view which we have taken is in the
\nlight of amendments made to Section 80HHC from time
\nto time.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore concluding we may state that profits are of
\nthree types, namely, book-profits, statutory profits and
\nactual profits.  The amendments to Section 80HHC(3)
\nindicate exclusion of book profits.  For example,
\ncommission, interest, etc. do form part of the profit and
\nloss account but for the purposes of calculation of profits
\nderived from local sales and exports, they stand
\nexcluded.  The difficulty arises because the formula is
\nbased on the Hybrid System of Profits, namely, actual
\nand statutory profits.  Therefore, this judgment should be
\nread in the context of the above parameters. Our
\nreasoning in this judgment is confined to the workability
\nof the formula in Section 80HHC(3) of the Act as it stood
\nat the material time.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the above reasons, we see no merit in these
\nappeals filed by the Department and, accordingly, they
\nare dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 Author: Kapadia Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4409 of 2005 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore RESPONDENT: M\/s. Lakshmi Machine Works DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/04\/2007 BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":7265,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007"},"wordCount":7265,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T22:37:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-lakshmi-machine-works-on-25-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Lakshmi Machine Works on 25 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}