The Assessing Officer denied the assessee’s claim to the exemptions under section 10A or 10B of the Act, since its direct exports were less than 75 per cent. of the total sales made during the year under consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the exemptions. The Tribunal was of the view that the stocks transferred during the year which had actually been sold by the Rotterdam unit would have to be construed as actual exports by the units of the assessee, recorded a finding that 75 per cent. of the assessee’s total sales by the eligible units comprised exports and confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee. The High Court held that the finding recorded by the Tribunal was a pure finding of fact and holding that no substantial question of law arose, dismissed the Department’s appeal. On further appeal the Court held that in view of the official liquidator’s report that the assessee-company was under liquidation and that there were no funds to satisfy the demand, and this fact having been considered by the court in the appeal dated July 21, 2020 between the parties, the court disposed of the appeal, leaving the question of law open.(AY. 2000-01)
CIT v. Moser Baer India Ltd (2025) 479 ITR 449/177 taxmann.com 281 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Moser Baer India Ltd (2009) 177 Taxman 42 /(2025) 479 ITR 446 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 10A : Free trade zone-Transfer to units outside India-Export sales Tribunal finding they were export sales and allowing exemption-High Court holding no question of law-Assessee-company going into liquidation and unable to pay demand-Matter disposed of leaving question of law open. [S. 10B, Art. 136]
Leave a Reply