Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)

ACIT vs. Prakash I. Shah (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 16, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(i) The exchange rate gain difference pertaining to exports is an integral part of the exports and export turnover and cannot be treated as income from other sources.

(ii) However, where such gain relates to exports made in an earlier year, the deuction u/s 80HHC is allowable only in the year in which the exports are made and not in the year of realisation of the gain.

(iii) As it would not be permissible to assess the exchange gain in the year of realisation while allowing s. 80HHC deduction in an earlier year, the AO was directed to exclude the exchange gain from the total income of the current year and to include it in the income of the year of exports and allow deduction u/s 80HHC accordingly.

Related Judgements

  1. Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    (i) The question whether expenditure is on capital or revenue account should be decided from the practical and business view point and in accordance with sound accountancy principles. The three tests applied to decide the nature of expenditure are the … Amway India vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special…
  2. Taj Lands End vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    It is not mandatory for an asseessee to claim depreciation prior to the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 32. Vahid Paper Converter vs. ITO 100 TTJ 532 (Ahd) (SB) distinguished.
    Read more ›
  3. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi 5 Member Spl Bench) 

    It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective….
  4. ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Of the two formulas available, the formula adopted by the assessee, i.e. of taking the difference between the indexed book value on the date of conversion and the sale proceeds as long-term capital gains, being beneficial to the assessee, should be adopted. No part of the gains can be…
  5. Cebon India vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 

    Where the record did not show that the assessee had been served with a notice under section 143(2) before the due date HELD that the assessment proceedings were not valid as the non-service of the notice was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural defect. Held also that…