On writ allowing the petition the Court held that  that the inflow of foreign exchange in question into India had resulted from the export that the assessee had made. This excess realization was inextricably linked to the export made by the assessee. Had the export not been made, the foreign exchange would not have come into India and no question of realization or excess realization in terms of Indian rupees would have arisen. Hence, in principle, such excess realization should be treated as part of the export turnover of the assessee. According to the definition of “export turnover” in the Act, before an amount received by an exporter could be treated as part of the export turnover, it must also be shown that the convertible foreign exchange was received in or brought into India within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or within such extended period as the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner (now Reserve Bank of India) might allow. The foreign exchange was received in India beyond the period of six months stipulated in sub-section (2)(a) of section 80HHC . The extra realization made in rupees for export sale proceeds in foreign exchange due to adverse exchange rate of rupees would be part of the export turnover in the year of receipt subject to the foreign exchange coming into the country within the statutorily prescribed time period. The export sale proceeds received in accordance with and in terms of the export contract and with the approval of Reserve Bank of India could not be ignored for the purpose of relief under s.  80HHC . The grounds on which the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim were untenable. Followed Raghunath Exports (P) Ltd. v. CIT ( 2011) 330 ITR 57 ( Cal) (HC). As regards the receipt brought to India after the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1994 -95 , matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration .( AY.1996-97)