High Court Of Kerala
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. South India Produce Company
Sections 80HHC(1), 80HHC(3)(b)
Asst. Year 1989-90, 1991-92
G. Sivarajan & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 17 & 50 of 1999
27th March, 2003
Counsel Appeared
P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Appellant : P. Balachandran, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
G. Sivarajan, J. :
These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA Nos. 798 and 799 (Coch) of 1994 filed by them in respect of the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92. The appeals filed by the respondent-assessee [ITA Nos. 652 and 653 (Coch) of 1994] for the very same assessment years were also disposed by the said common order. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed in part and the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. There are no appeals by the assessee. Common questions of law arise for consideration in both these appeals. The only difference is in the amount in the two cases. Hence, these two cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The respondent-assessee is a leading exporter of spices in South India. In the assessment under the IT Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), for the years 1989-90 and 1991-92, the assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act in respect of interest received on fixed deposits. The assessee had also excluded the agency despatches from the total turnover for the computation of the deduction under s. 80HHC. Both the claims were rejected by the AO. The assessments were completed treating the interest on fixed deposit as income under other sources. The AO also included the agency despatches in the “total turnover” relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cardamom Planters Association vs. Dy. CST (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) (1989) 75 STC 118 (SC). In appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) allowed both the claims. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and confirmed the order of the first appellate authority on these issues. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue.
The Revenue has raised the following questions of law on which notices were issued in both the appeals :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income of Rs. 19,40,886 is assessable under the head ‘Business income’ ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, can the interest be said to be an income directly connected with the business in the sense the income is generated by the business ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income is eligible to be considered for deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting the agency despatch from the total turnover of the business for computing the deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the exclusive definition of total turnover as per which only sums referred to cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28 are to be excluded, whether the agency despatches were rightly deleted from the total turnover by the Tribunal ?”
We have heard Sri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior Central Government standing counsel for the Revenue, and Sri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, in both these cases. The first three questions relate to the claim for deduction in respect of the interest income received on fixed deposits under s. 80HHC of the Act. During the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92, the assessee had received interest from fixed deposits from banks
and also from amounts lent to others. The assessee claimed deduction on interest receipt as business income under s. 80HHC of the Act. The AO had noted that in the appeal against the assessment order for the asst. yr. 1990-91 the first appellate authority had taken the view that interest on fixed deposit with the banks has to be treated as business income eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC. However, since the said order was pending in appeal the AO had maintained the stand that interest income is assessable under the head “Other sources”. The claim was accordingly rejected. In the appeals against the assessment order for the years 1989-90 and 1991-92 the first appellate authority, relying on the appellate order for the year 1990-91, allowed the deduction in respect of the interest on deposits with the bank. In appeals by the Revenue, the Tribunal concurred with the view of the first appellate authority.
The question as to whether interest income from bank deposits would constitute “business income” for the purpose of computation of the deduction under s. 80HHC came up for consideration before this Court in CIT vs. Jose Thomas (2002) 173 CTR (Ker) 336 : (2002) 253 ITR 553 (Ker). The Division Bench, relying on its earlier decision in CIT vs. Parekh Bros. (2002) 172 CTR (Ker) 371 : (2002) 253 ITR 43 (Ker), and other decisions of this Court in Traco Cable Company Ltd. vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 503 (Ker) and Collis Line (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1982) 135 ITR 390 (Ker) held that interest income on bank deposits is only income from “other sources” and does not constitute business income for the purpose of computation of relief under s. 80HHC of the Act. The decision of this Court in CIT vs. Parekh Bros. (supra) relied on by the Division Bench in Jose Thomas’ case (supra) appears to be a mistake. Probably the Division Bench had in mind their decision in Abad Enterprises vs. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (Ker) 593 : (2002) 253 ITR 319 (Ker) where the Division Bench held in the context of prima facie adjustment under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, relying on the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1982) 27 CTR (Ker) 147 : (1982) 135 ITR 278 (Ker), that interest received on a bank deposit was not income from business. Another Division Bench of this Court in Nanji Topanbhai & Co. vs. Asst. CIT & Ors. (1999) 157 CTR (Ker) 225 : (2000) 243 ITR 192 (Ker), had taken the view that income received by way of interest on fixed deposit with the bank is not business income but only income from “other sources”.
In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court the order of the Tribunal on this question cannot be sustained. We accordingly answer question Nos. 1 to 3 in both the appeals in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The next two questions relate to exclusion of agency despatches from the total turnover of the business for computing the deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. Apart from export sales the assessee had local sales of own goods as well as “agency despatches”. The AO had noted that the assessee itself had included agency despatches under local sales and this local sale itself being classified under the broad head “sales” in Sch. II of the P&L a/c. He also noted that the assessee had included this agency despatches under column 4 of the sales-tax return under the head “Total turnover” and claimed exemption. The AO also relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Cardamom Planters’ Association (1987) 67 STC 294 (Ker), and the decision of the Supreme Court in Cardamom Planters’ Association vs. Dy. CST (supra) affirming the said view for including “agency despatches” in the “total turnover” for the purposes of s. 80HHC. The first appellate authority, relying on its earlier decision in the appeal against the assessment for 1990-91 directed the AO to exclude the agency despatches from the total turnover for these years also. Though the Revenue challenged the said finding in appeal, the Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority’s view and dismissed the appeal.
The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue is that the assessee itself had included the agency despatches under the head “Sales” in the P&L a/c and moreover the agency despatches form part of the turnover for the purposes of sales-tax assessment. It was also contended that in view of the exclusive definition of total turnover only the sums referred to in cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28 are to be excluded. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that the expression “total turnover” of the business carried on by the assessee used in s. 80HHC(3)(b) in the absence of any definition of “turnover” must be confined to the turnover of the product which the assessee was exporting and that at any rate, only the turnover of own goods can be included in the total turnover. Sec. 80HHC of the Act for and from the asst. yr. 1989-90 provided for deduction in respect of the profit derived by the eligible assessee from the export of eligible goods or merchandise. In a case where the business carried on by the assessee consists exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise to which the provisions of s. 80HHC apply, the profits derived from the export of goods or merchandise for the purposes of the deduction shall be the profits of the business as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. In a case where the business carried on by the assessee does not consist exclusively of the export out
of India of the goods or merchandise to which the provisions of this section apply, the profits derived from the export of the goods or merchandise shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the assessee as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” the same proportion as the amount of the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. Sec. 80HHC(3) (as it stood prior to 1st April, 1991) reads : “80HHC. (3) For the purposes of sub-s. (1), profits derived from the export of goods or merchandise out of India shall be,— (a) in a case where the business carried on by the assessee consists exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise to which this section applies, the profits of the business as computed under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’ ; (b) in a case where the business carried on by the assessee does not consist exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise to which this section applies, the amount which bears to the profits of the business (as computed under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’) the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.”
In the present case, the business carried on by the assessee does not consist exclusively of the export out of India of the goods or merchandise but also the inter-state sales of own goods as well as goods belonging to others on commission basis. Hence the computation of the relief has to be made as provided in cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s.
80HHC. The formula provided to work out the deduction of export profits from the gross total income is
The expressions “export turnover” and “total turnover” are defined in the Explanation to s. 80HHC as follows : Profits of the business x Export turnover Total turnover “(b) ‘export turnover’ means the sale proceeds, received in, or brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange in accordance with cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies and which are exported out of India, but does not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) ; (ba) ‘total turnover’ shall not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) : Provided that in relation to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the expression ‘total turnover’ shall have effect as if it also excluded any sum referred to in cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28.”
The word “turnover” is not defined in the Act though total turnover is defined. The definition of total turnover does not state what are all the items that will form part of the total turnover; Expln. (bb) added w.e.f. 1st April, 1991, and later omitted with effect from the said date specifically excluded certain receipts specified in cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28. Clause (ba) of the Explanation to s. 80HHC only says that the total turnover shall not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act. The proviso also stated that in relation to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the expression “total turnover” shall have effect as if it also excluded any sum referred to in cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28. Clause (baa) of the Explanation to s. 80HHC which defines “profits of the business” specifically provides for reduction of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits, of course w.e.f. 1st April, 1992.
The word “turnover” as already noted is not defined in the Act. One of the meanings given to the word “turnover” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles revised by C.T. Onions, Third edition, is “the total amount of business done in a given time ; also, the amount of goods produced and disposed of by a manufacturer; also, the “turning over” of the capital involved in a business; also, the net profit derived from a business in a given time; adj : that turns or is turned over.” Going by the above definition of the word “turnover” one thing is clear that the consideration received for the sale of the goods must be available with the assessee for being turned over, or, in other words, it must come to the assessee’s till as money belonging to him. It has got relation to the capital employed in the business ; turnover has also got relationship with profits of the business. So far as commission sales are concerned, the assessee sells the goods belonging to other principals on a percentage of commission for the services done by the assessee by way of sale of the goods belonging to those principals and so far as the receipt of the commission is concerned it has no relationship with profit though such receipts have got the characteristic of “income”. However, under the sales-tax legislations of the States, commission sales are treated as turnover of the agent only because of the definition of the term “dealer” which takes in a commission agent also. The Supreme Court in Cardamom Planters’ Association vs. Dy. CST (Law) (supra) has said so. In that case the
appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, sold the produce of its members who were cardamom growers, under a statutory licence under which it could not charge more than one per cent of the sale price as commission. Though the appellant had not claimed for purposes of the primary sales-tax, that the turnover of the goods dealt with by it on behalf of the principals should be dissected and tax imposed on the basis of the liability of the principal, for the purpose of the surcharge under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act, 1957, it made such a claim. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was clearly a “dealer” within the meaning of the statute, particularly in view of the inclusive definition of dealer in s. 2(viii) of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act and the appellant’s taxable turnover has to be determined by taking the aggregate price of all the goods sold by it. The Supreme Court further observed that the provisions of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act and the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act clearly treat a commission agent as a dealer and make him liable to sales-tax as well as surcharge in respect of the entire turnover and that they do not contemplate dissection of his turnover into transactions on behalf of various principals by reference to their liability to pay either sales-tax or surcharge. This decision was again followed by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. O.P. Lodha (1997) 105 STC 561 (SC) in the context of levying turnover tax under the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of the Act leaves no room for doubt that an agent who sells goods on behalf of somebody else cannot escape liability to pay sales-tax on the sales made by him for and on behalf of others merely because he was selling goods on behalf of others and that the charge under s. 6B has been imposed directly upon him by the broad definition of “dealer”. The Court observed that the liability of the agent to pay sales-tax on the sales made by him has to be found out from the Sales-tax Act itself and not on any general principle of agency. The agent has been made liable to pay turnover tax by the provisions of s. 6B r/w s. 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941, and the liability to pay tax is his own. The Supreme Court finally held as follows : “We are of the view that basically, the West Bengal Act is on similar lines as the Kerala Act. An agent as a dealer has been made directly liable to pay sales-tax for good reasons. The Act has not provided for splitting of the sales made by the dealer for and on behalf of different principals and make separate assessment on the dealer. It is the total turnover of the dealer which has been brought to tax under the Act. In making the assessment of the dealer, the Commercial Tax Officer does not have to find out what was the exact quantum of sales effected on behalf of each principal and what was the liability, if any, of that principal. The liability to pay tax imposed by s. 6B is on the dealer himself and not on the principal through the dealer. For computing his liability, the taxable turnover of the dealer has to be found out.” It is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court discussed above that the agency transaction was treated as part of the total turnover of the agent only because of the extended meaning of the definition of “dealer” in the sales-tax legislations and not otherwise.
16. Now we will revert to the provisions of the Act dealing with the deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The deduction is in respect of profits retained for export business. Sub-s. (1) clearly provides that where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of the profits derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise. Thus in the case of a person who satisfies the conditions of s. 80HHC(1) what is required to get the relief under this section is to ascertain the profit derived by the assessee from the export of the goods or merchandise specified in the section. The computation of the profit of the export business is provided in sub-s. (3). In a case where the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s. (3) apply there is no difficulty in the computation. However, in a case where cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) applies the formula of Profits of the business x Export turnover Total turnover is provided under cl. (b) of sub-s. (3). Export turnover, as already noted, is defined in cl. (b) of the Explanation to s. 80HHC. It means the sale proceeds received in or brought to India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange (rest of the definition omitted). This shows that the export turnover must be the turnover of goods exported by the assessee and sale proceeds of such goods brought by him in India. This would clearly show that the assessee must be the owner of the goods which are exported by him and the sale proceeds brought to India must be in respect of the export of own goods. We have already referred to the dictionary meaning of the term “turnover” which also would show that the sale proceeds which are brought to India must be available to him as capital for being used for further exports and the question of profits from export turnover also arises only in respect of the sale proceeds of own goods which are exported by the assessee. The commission receipts as already noted does not have an element of profit.
The expression “export turnover” is the numerator and the expression “total turnover” is the denominator. If the expression “export turnover” does not contemplate the sale proceeds of the goods which are exported by the assessee out of India belonging to others, definitely the turnover of goods belonging to others cannot form part of the expression “total turnover” also, for, if the turnover of goods belonging to others which are sold by the assessee as agents of non-resident principals on commission basis is included in the expression “total turnover”, it would defeat the object of the section as it would artificially reduce the export profits and in turn result in reducing relief to exporters. In such circumstances, the word “turnover” occurring in the expressions “export turnover” and “total turnover” should bear the same meaning and the ingredients of export turnover should also constitute the ingredients of total turnover to enable working out the proportionate profit from exports.
In fact cl. (baa) in the Explanation to s. 80HHC inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, defines “profits of the business” where it is clearly stated that the profits of the business as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” as reduced by ninety per cent of any sum referred to in cls. (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of s. 28 or of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits.
The scope and effect of all the amendments have been elaborated in Circular No. 621, dt. 19th Dec., 1991 [(1992)
101 CTR (St) 1]. Paras 32.10 and 32.11 of the said circular read thus : “32.10. The existing formula often gives a distorted figure of export profits when receipts like interest, commission, etc., which do not have element of turnover are included in the P&L a/c. 32.11. It has, therefore, been clarified that ‘profits of the business’ for the purpose of s. 80HHC will not include receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent charges or any other receipt of a similar nature. As some expenditure might be incurred in earning these incomes, which in the generality of cases is part of common expenses, ad hoc 10 per cent deduction from such incomes is provided to account for these expenses.” These amendments, it was noted in the circular itself will take effect only in relation to the asst. yr. 1992-93 and subsequent assessment years.
The above extract clearly states that the inclusion of receipts like commission, etc., which do not have an element of turnover and if the same is included in the P&L a/c it will give distorted figure of export profits and that it is in the above circumstances, the receipts like brokerage, commission, etc., are specifically excluded from profits of the business for the purposes of s. 80HHC. This is also indicative of the fact that the sales turnover of the goods belonging to the principals made on commission basis cannot be included as the turnover of the business of the assessee. A question arose before the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd. (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 596 : (2000) 245 ITR 769 (Bom), as to whether the elements like excise duty and sales-tax are includible in the total turnover for the purposes of computation of special deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The High Court held that those two elements cannot be included in the total turnover. The Bombay High Court observed thus : “Under s. 80HHC, the legislature intends that the profits from exports should not be taxed. For this purpose, a formula has been introduced whereby if the business is of composite nature then the proportionate profit relatable to the export business is to be found out by multiplying the profits of a business by the export turnover and dividing the product by the total turnover. This formula finds place in s. 80HHC(3) as it stood at the relevant time. Under cl. (b) of the Explanation to s. 80HHC, export turnover is defined to mean sale proceeds received in India by the assessee in foreign exchange. Under the said definition, export turnover is defined to mean the sale proceeds of any goods which are exported out of India but which will not include freight or insurance. Clause (ba) defines total turnover to exclude freight or insurance. This cl. (ba) explains the turnover in a negative manner so as to exclude freight or insurance. Therefore, a combined reading of the above two clauses shows that they include anything which has nexus with the sale proceeds. Correspondingly, they show that they exclude everything which has no nexus with the sale proceeds. Further, the meaning of export turnover in cl. (b) of the Explanation to s.
80HHC, therefore, clearly shows that export turnover did not include excise duty and sales-tax. The export turnover is the numerator in the above formula whereas the total turnover is the denominator. The above formula has been prescribed to arrive at the profits from exports. In the circumstances, the above two items, namely, sales- tax and excise duty, cannot form part of the total turnover. In fact, if the denominator was to include the above two items and if the numerator excluded the above two items then the formula would become unworkable.” The Court further observed as follows : “We prefer this interpretation as it advances the object sought to be achieved by the legislature. Lastly, we are of the view that sales-tax and excise duties are levied under the separate enactments which have different objects. We are concerned with s. 80HHC which is a separate code by itself. Hence, the
general definition of the word ‘turnover’ or the case law dealing with the said definition under the Sales-tax Act which is a state levy, cannot be imported into s. 80HHC of the IT Act. Hence, we do not find any merit in these appeals.”
22. Again the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Kantilal Chhotalal (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 476 : (2000) 246 ITR 439 (Bom), considered the question whether reassortment charges (commission received from the local parties in India from their export sales) were includible in business profits for the purpose of s. 80HHC. The High Court observed thus “Therefore, by cl. (ba) of the Explanation, total turnover also excluded freight or insurance. A reading of cl. (b) and cl. (ba) of the Explanation clearly indicates that the legislature has brought on par the components of export turnover and sale turnover. Both the numerator and the denominator show that they refer to sale proceeds. Any receipt which does not form part of sale proceeds cannot come within the ambit of the above ratio. This is also in view of the fact that proration applies to business profits in order to work out the export profits. Therefore, the numerator and the denominator are required to have a common element which is the sale proceeds. In fact, by the proviso in cl. (ba) to the Explanation, it is further provided that the expression “total turnover” shall have effect so as to exclude ss. 28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) which refer to, inter alia, profits on sale of a licence granted under the Import (Control) Order, cash assistance, duty drawback, etc. This exclusion also shows that the legislature clearly intended to exclude all receipts which have no nexus with sale proceeds from export activity. Hence, total turnover cannot include reassortment charges, labour charges, commission, interest, rent or receipts of similar nature. Therefore, total turnover will not include receipts like labour charges, reassortment charges, etc.”
23. Another question arose before the Madras High Court in CIT vs. The Madras Motors Ltd./M. M. Forgings Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (Mad) 221 : (2002) 257 ITR 60 (Mad) as to whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the total turnover in s. 80HHC of the Act is the turnover relating to export business of the assessee and not the turnover relating to other business of the assessee. The assessee in that case was engaged in export of forgings as well as in the business of selling motor cycles, spare parts thereof and television sets, etc. The AO took “total turnover” to be the turnover from all the sources of business as the assessee was also doing the business of selling the motor cycles, spare parts thereof and television sets. The contention of the assessee was that the “total turnover” must be confined to the turnover of the product which the assessee was exporting. This was accepted by the Tribunal. The Madras High Court held that the business contemplated in the section would be restricted only to the goods to which the section applies and, therefore, by necessary implication even the total turnover of the business would be the total turnover of the business of the goods to which the section applies. If one includes the turnover of the goods to which the section does not apply, according to the High Court, it would amount to doing violence to the language of the sub-section itself. It is observed that the sub-section has been created only to see the ratio of the income out of the export to the total income out of the business in respect of those goods because of the obvious difficulty of segregating the profits earned out of export alone vis-a-vis the profits earned otherwise than by export.
24. We are of the view that it is unnecessary for us to deliberate much on this issue so far as this case is concerned. There is no dispute that so far as agency transaction the appellant has no title or ownership over the goods and that they are only entitled to get a commission in respect of the sale of such goods made on behalf of their principals. There is no definition of turnover in the Act as obtained in the sales-tax legislations which make the commission agent also a “dealer” liable to tax on the agency transactions as well. As such it is only the sales turnover of goods belonging to the assessee as its own that can be included in the definition of total turnover in cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC of the Act. On the other hand, if the sales turnover of the agency transaction is also included in the expression “total turnover” that will only inflate the denominator so that the very purpose of the deduction will be defeated. The assessee, it must be noted, has shown agency transactions as “local sales” and had included the agency transactions in the sales-tax returns under the head “Total turnover” only because of the definition of “dealer” and “total turnover” in the Kerala General Sales-tax Act and not otherwise. However, in the absence of a definition of the term “turnover” in the Act the said term occurring in the Act has to be understood only in the popular sense as defined in the dictionaries. Going by the said meaning agency transactions by no stretch of imagination can be treated as forming part of “total turnover”. In this context it is worthwhile to note the object with which s. 80HHC is inserted. The object of the enactment of s. 80HHC was initially with a view to encourage larger exports of certain goods by providing tax relief to Indian companies and non-corporate taxpayers resident in India. The section was amended in 1985 by substituting a new section with a view to providing exporters with requisite resources for modernisation, technological upgradation, product development and other activities and raising their efficiency and productivity not only in the export section but also in the economy as a whole. The effect of adding the turnover of some body else (sale of goods belonging to the principals on commission basis) also will result in inflating the total turnover and consequently in the application of the formula the benefit will be reduced considerably. This will not be in tune with the object of the section.
25. We, in the above circumstances, hold that the turnover of agency transactions will not form part of the total turnover in cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC of the Act. We answer question Nos. 4 and 5 accordingly.
These two appeals are disposed of as above.
[Citation : 262 ITR 20]
