High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. R. Rajinikanth
Section 80HHC
Asst. Year 1994-95, 1998-99,
P.D.Dinakaran & Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.2691 & 2692 of 2006
2nd January, 2007
Counsel Appeared :
J. Narayanaswamy, for the Appellant :
JUDGMENT
P.D. Dinakaran, J. :
The above tax case appeals are directed against the common order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1629 and 1628/Mds/2002 dt. 12th May, 2006.
2. The Revenue is the appellant. During the relevant assessment years, viz., 1994-95 and 199899, the respective assessees claimed deduction under s. 80HHC in respect of export of film prints to foreign enterprises. Initially, the claim of the assessees was allowed, but on reopening the assessment, the AO withdrew the deduction on the basis of the order of the Tribunal that the sale of rights does not mean that goods have been exported out of India. Against the said orders of the AO, the assessees preferred appeals before the CIT(A), who allowed the appeals, against which, the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also held the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence, the present tax case appeals by the Revenue raising the following common substantial questions of law:
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the transfer of the right to exhibit the films, as a sale of goods or merchandise for the purpose of deduction under s. 80HHC ?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, a transaction for transfer of exploitation rights, entered into in India can be eligible for the benefit of sec.80HHC only because the consideration was received in foreign exchange ?”
Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, fairly submits that the issues raised in the above questions of law are squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. V.C.Kuganathan [reported at (2008) 214 CTR (Mad) -Ed]dt. 31.10.2006 (T.C.Nos.224 of 2003, etc. batch).
In the said decision, this Court, agreeing with the views taken by the Bombay High Court in Abdulgafar A.Nadiadwala Vs. Dy.CIT (2004) 188 CTR (Bom) 232 : (2004) 267 ITR 488 (Bom) as well as applying the principle laid down by the apex Court in Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 192 CTR (SC) 257 : 271 ITR 401 (SC), with regard to considering the scope of the word “goods”, while observing that exporting the right for exhibition of positive print is nothing but sale of goods or merchandise, held that the assessee therein had satisfied the conditions contemplated under s. 80HHC of the Act and hence, entitled for the deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act.
In view of the above settled proposition of law, we do not see any merit in the above tax case appeals and hence, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Misc. Petn. No. 1 of 2006 in Tax Case (Appeal) No. 2691 of 2006 is also dismissed.
[Citation : 295 ITR 523]
