Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
The captioned are four appeals relating to the same assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and since they involve common issue, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We may first take-up the cross-appeals by the assessee and Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal :-
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in treating the share application money written back by the assessee company as capital receipt and thus not taxable without appreciating the fact that the share application money was not converted into share capital and ploughed back into the business as windfall and therefore, a revenue receipt?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessee's claim that the profit u/s 10A is not liable to be included in the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act and ignoring the amendment by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01,04.2008 whereby the words 10A and 10B have been omitted from Explanation 1(f) and (ii) of Section 115JB of the Act, thereby bringing the profits /loss of 10A & 10B units within the purview of MAT?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act as its unit is in the Special Economic Zone and, hence its case is covered within the exemption provided in clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act ignoring the specific omission of the words 10A and 10B in Explanation 1(f) and (ii) of Section 115JB of the Act by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2008.?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act as its unit is in the Special Economic Zone and, hence its case is covered within the exemption provided in clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act ignoring without appreciating that the Clause(6) has been inserted by the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, w.e.f. 10.02.2006 concurrently with the insertion of Section 10AA, also by the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, w.e.f. 10.02.2006 and hence, clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act is applicable only to 10AA units and not to 10A units since due to amendment in clauses (f) and (ii) of Explanation 1 of section 115JB by Finance Act 2007, profit/loss of 10A & 10B units has been expressly brought within the purview of MAT w.e.f. AY 2008-09.?
The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.”
Insofar as Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same arises from the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.43,72,750/- to the returned income representing forfeiture of share application money.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy on this issue, the relevant facts are as follows. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was proposed to be a joint venture between one, Mr. Basil Dubb, a foreign national and Andin International Inc., USA and Shri Pramod Goenka and accordingly, the share application money was received from such parties. In the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2005-06, apart from other amounts, a sum of USD 100000 was received from Mr. Basil Dubb, which on conversion in Indian Rupee amounted to Rs.43,72,750/-. However, with passage of time, business differences arose and Mr. Basil Dubb decided to opt out of the joint venture and accordingly, no shares were allotted corresponding to the aforesaid share application money and so far as the share application money received from the other parties was concerned, the equity shares were allotted. However, the management of the assessee-company carried forward the share application money as such upto 31.03.2011 and in the financial year ending on 31.03.2012, the said amount was written-back. In the course of the impugned assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer noted from the Balance-sheet that the share application money of Rs.43,72,750/- was outstanding for a substantial period of time and, therefore, asked for full details. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer its action of writing back the said share application money in financial year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee as to why the impugned sum should not be treated as a revenue receipt chargeable to tax in the instant assessment year even though the assessee-company had written back the impugned share application money in the subsequent Assessment Year of 2012-13. The assessee vide written communication dated 28.01.2013 resisted the stand of the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer treated the impugned sum as a revenue receipt and consequently, brought to tax the same in the instant year itself. The reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer can be understood as follows. On the issue of treating it as a revenue receipt, the Assessing Officer noted that initially the money was received by the assessee through automatic route under FEMA and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence with regard to the nature of receipt, the mere recording in the account books as share application money was not sufficient to treat it as capital receipt. As per the Assessing Officer, the utilisation of money determines its nature and since there was no evidence to show that the impugned share application money was utilised for a capital purpose, the same is liable to be taken as a revenue receipt. Further, as per the Assessing Officer, the routing of the write-back of share application money via the Profit & Loss Account in Assessment Year 2012-13 evidences it as a trading receipt. For all the said reasons, he treated it as a revenue receipt. Secondly, with regard to taxing it in the instant assessment year, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with assessee’s explanation regarding writing back of the impugned share application money in financial year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13. In fact, as per the Assessing Officer, “assessee has not been able to give any specific reason as to why the same cannot be assessed in the current year” and, therefore, he brought to tax the said sum in the instant year itself. The Assessing Officer concluded by holding that “the forfeiture of the share application money of Rs.43,72,750/- is assessed as the income of the assessee for the current year u/s 28(iv) of the Act under the head ‘Business Income’”.
5. Before the CIT(A), assessee raised varied submissions on facts and in law. The CIT(A) concurred with the stand of the assessee that the share application money of Rs.43,72,750/- received from Mr. Basil Dubb subsisted as on the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, and that, pending the write-back in the later year, the same could not be assessed as income in the instant assessment year by invoking the provisions of Sec. 28(iv) or 41(1) of the Act. As per the CIT(A), the impugned sum was a capital receipt and not in the nature of a liability which could be brought to tax in terms of Sec. 41(1) of the Act. Against such a decision of CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.
6. Before us, the ld. DR has assailed the decision of CIT(A) on the basis of the stand of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, which we have already noted in the earlier paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Apart therefrom, the ld. DR pointed out that the share application money in question was not converted into Share Capital even in the future years and instead, it has been ploughed back into business as a windfall and, therefore, it constituted revenue receipt.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before proceeding to adjudicate the precise controversy, we may briefly cull out the relevant facts. The assessee-company received subscription towards share application money from one, Mr. Basil Dubb in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2005-06 of Rs.43,72,750/-. The said share application money continued to be reflected as part of Shareholder’s Funds in the accounts of the assessee starting from the year ending 31.03.2005 to 31.03.2011; and, it was only in the year ending 31.03.2012 that the management of the assessee-company decided to write-back the same. It is also not in dispute that the source of receipt of share application money is identified and, for that matter, assessee had brought out before the CIT(A) that the assessment for the period ending 31.03.2005 corresponding to Assessment Year 2005-06 has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. It has also been brought out that even for the years ended on 31.03.2006 to 31.03.2008, the assessments of the assessee have been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the factum of such receipt subsisting as share application money was prevalent and no adverse view has been taken by the assessing authorities. It is also an admitted fact, which is emerging, that in the year ending on 31.03.2012 the said amount of share application money has been written-back and such write-back of share application money has been routed through the Profit & Loss Account. The factum of routing the write back through the Profit & Loss Account has been interpreted by the Assessing Officer as a basis to say that the same is revenue in nature. We may say on this aspect that the manner of preparation of the Annual Financial statement by the assessee, which is a corporate body, is governed by the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956 as also the applicable Accounting Standards (AS). In this context, the AS-5, which is mandatory in nature, permits the write-back of such receipts, though of capital nature, only through the Profit & Loss Account and not directly to the account of Capital Reserve. Therefore, the strength drawn by the Assessing Officer from the fact that the write-back of share application money has been routed through the Profit & Loss Account and therefore it is a revenue/trading receipt, is of no consequence as the same, in our considered opinion, has to be governed by the applicable legal position and not by the manner in which the amount has been written-back in the financial statements.
8. In the above factual background, now the efficacy of the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer is required to be examined. Insofar as the stand of the Assessing Officer, based on Sec. 28(iv) of the Act is concerned, the same, in our view, is wholly misplaced. Sec. 28(iv) of the Act seeks to prescribe that “the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession” is chargeable to income-tax under the head profit and gains of business and profession. As the phraseology of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act shows, it is the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, which is sought to be covered therein. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs CIT, 261 ITR 501 (Bom) held that the said provision would apply only when a benefit or perquisite is received in kind and has no application where the benefit is received in the form of cash or money. In fact, based on such reasoning, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Xylon Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 90 DTR 205 held that the waiver of liability to repay a loan towards purchase of a capital asset would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act as the said section applies only when the benefit or perquisite is received in kind. Factually speaking, in the instant case, the so-called benefit understood by the Assessing Officer, has been received in cash, namely, share application money and, therefore, its forfeiture would not fall within the purview of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act. Therefore, so far as invoking of Sec. 28(iv) of the Act is concerned, there is a clear error on the part of the Assessing Officer, and the same has been rightly negated by the CIT(A).
9. So far as the stand of the Assessing Officer that the receipt of share application money is a revenue receipt is concerned, the same, in our view, is also untenable and has been rightly set-aside by the CIT(A). Factually, since the Assessment Year 2005-06, the share application money has been reflected in the Balance-sheet as part of the ‘Shareholder’s Funds’ and it has been accepted as a capital receipt even in the assessments finalised u/s 143(3) of the Act. The case made out by the Revenue that it amounts to a cessation of liability as no Share Capital has been allocated, in our view, is gross misunderstanding of the legal position. The CIT(A) noted that Sec. 41(1) of the Act is inapplicable in the present case as forfeiture of share application money is not a recoupment of any trading liability or expenditure or loss referred to in Sec. 41(1) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the attempt of the Revenue to bring the impugned write-back of share application money within the fold of Sec. 41(1) of the Act is wholly erroneous as the opening words of Sec. 41(1) of the Act itself show. The opening words of Sec. 41(1) of the Act say “Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee.......................”. This clearly shows that Sec. 41(1) of the Act seeks to bring into its fold recoupment of any loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee, which has been allowed as a deduction in the assessment of any year. Quite clearly, the share application money received by the assessee does not constitute such a loss, expenditure or trading liability as understood for the purpose of Sec. 41(1) of the Act and on this singular aspect itself we find that the CIT(A) made no mistake in concluding the inapplicability of Sec. 41(1) of the Act.
Further, at the time of hearing, the learned representative pointed out that so far as the instant assessment year is concerned, there is no cause for the Assessing Officer to have attempted to assess the impugned sum inasmuch as the write-back of share application money has been effected only in the subsequent assessment year of 2012-13. In this context, we find that the share application money has continued to be reflected as part of the ‘Shareholder’s Funds’ in the past since Assessment Year 2005-06 and in the instant year, no event has taken place to say that there is any write-back of the share application money. The Assessing Officer, in our view, has grossly erred in holding that “assessee has not been able to give any specific reason as to why the same cannot be assessed in the current year”. The Assessing Officer has wrongly put the onus on the assessee, rather, in our view, the onus was on the Assessing Officer to show as to why, inspite of assessee having written-back the amount in the subsequent year, the impugned sum was liable to be assessed in the instant year itself. In our view, the Assessing Officer has assessed the same in the instant year without any rationale which, in our view, has been rightly set-aside by the CIT(A). Thus, insofar as Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed.
Insofar as Ground of appeal nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the same relate to determination of profit u/s 115JB of the Act. In this context, the relevant facts are that the Assessing Officer noted that the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was declared at NIL while as per the Profit & Loss Account, there was positive book profit of Rs.3,10,85,092/-. On being show-caused, assessee submitted that its manufacturing unit eligible for the benefit u/s 10A of the Act was located in a SEZ area and by virtue of Sec. 115JB(6) of the Act, the provisions of MAT are not applicable to the income accrued or arising from the business carried on from said unit in SEZ. As per the Assessing Officer, provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act were applicable to assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 10A and 10B of the Act w.e.f. Assessment Year 2008-09 and that sub-section (6) of Sec. 115JB of the Act was meant only for assessees claiming deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and not for assessees claiming deduction u/s 10A or 10B of the Act. For this reason, the Assessing Officer held that for the purpose of computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, income relating to the 10A unit was also includible. This action of the Assessing Officer has been set-aside by the CIT(A), based on the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Sec. 115JB of the Act and by placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Genesys International Corporation Limited vs ACIT, (2013) 151 TTJ (Mumbai) 588. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the aforesaid issue had come up before the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2008-09 in the case of assessee and vide dated 05.11.2014, it has been decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant discussion in the order of the Tribunal dated 05.11.2014 is as follows :-
“6. The facts of the present case are similar to that of the case of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (supra), and the assessment year involved in both the cases is 2008-09. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of both the parties, we are of the considered view that the decision rendered in the case of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (supra), is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by the Revenue. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai ‘E’ Bench in the case of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. (supra), we reverse the orders of the authorities below and hold that the income relating to SEZ unit is to be excluded while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed.”
Following the aforesaid precedent, as the issue involved is similar, in this year too, we affirm the decision of CIT(A) in holding that the income relating to the SEZ unit is excludible while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) made no mistake in setting aside the action of the Assessing Officer, which is hereby affirmed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed.
Now, we take-up the cross-appeal preferred by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein the following Grounds have been raised:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld.AO)- (a) not to exclude the interest income earned of Rs.4,48,942/- in determining the profits of the business;
Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate (a.i) to exclude the net interest income of Rs. 2,20,273/- in determining the profits of the business.
(b) not to exclude the sundry credit balances written back of Rs.4,73,614/- in determining the profits of the business.
(c) to increase the profits of the business by interest income of Rs.4,48,942/- as in the assessment order, the said income has been reduced twice.
2. It is humbly prayed that the relief as prayed for here-in-above should be granted.”
The grievance of the assessee in its appeal revolves around the computation of deduction eligible u/s 10A of the Act. The first grievance of the assessee is with regard to the action of income-tax authorities in excluding the interest income of Rs.4,48,942/- for determination of profits of the business in order to calculate the deduction u/s 10A of the Act. In this context, the relevant facts are that assessee had borrowed funds from State Bank of India which included working capital facilities as also term loans. For availing credit facilities, assessee was required to place FDRs with the bank which earned interest of Rs.4,30,111/-. Secondly, assessee had placed security deposit with the electricity company for availing electric connection on which assessee earned interest of Rs.18,831/-. Both these elements of interest income amounting to Rs.4,48,942/- have been held ineligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act and the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) is that such income is not derived from Sec. 10A eligible undertaking’s business.
Before us, the learned representative for the assessee emphasised that both the interest incomes are inextricably connected to the business of the undertaking and, therefore, the same are eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act. It has also been pointed out that the profits of the business of the undertaking would include even the incidental incomes which are derived from carrying out the business of the undertaking and the instant interest incomes arose on account of activities carried out for the purpose of business. Firstly, it was pointed out that the fixed deposits placed with the bank were necessary to raise the borrowings, which in turn have been utilised for assessee’s business eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Even the security deposit placed with the electricity company was in terms of the stipulation for availing electricity connection at the manufacturing unit of the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand of the lower authorities by pointing out that the interest income was not directly derived from the exports.
On this aspect, reliance has been placed before us on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd., dated 30.10.2017 wherein interest income earned on funds placed with the bank was held to be eligible for benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act on the ground that such income was incidental to the business eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act. In the case before us, it is factually evident that the interest income on FDRs with bank is with respect to the borrowings which have in turn been utilised for the eligible business and, therefore, such interest income would be eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act. So far as the interest earned on electricity security deposit is concerned, in a similar situation, our co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Dania Oro Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, ITA No. 7635/Mum/2014 dated 03.01.2018 held such interest income to be eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act. Following the aforesaid decisions which are directly on the point, we approve the stand of the assessee for including the interest income of Rs.4,48,942/- in order to determine the profits of business for the calculation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Since assessee has succeeded on the main plea in Ground of appeal no. 1(a), the alternate plea in Ground of appeal no. 1(a.i) is dismissed.
The second aspect raised before us is against the exclusion of sundry credit balances written-back of Rs.4,73,650/- in determining the profits of business for computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. In this context, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out to pages 111 & 112 of the Paper Book wherein is placed the details of the sundry credit balances written-back. A perusal of the same shows that in most of the cases, the items are revenue in nature and, therefore, in our view, such income is also eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act.
The last grievance of the assessee on this point is with respect to the interest income of Rs.4,48,942/- inasmuch as, according to the assessee, the said income has been reduced twice and, therefore, rectification needs to be carried out to increase the profits of the business to that extent. The said aspect is factual in nature and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for appropriate appreciation of facts and decision thereon. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above.
Now, we may take-up the appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11, wherein the following Grounds of appeal have been raised :-
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the assesse claim that the profit u/s 10A is not liable to be included in the book profit computing u/s 115JB of the Act and ignoring the amendment by Finance Act, 207 w.e.f .01.04.2008 whereby the words 10A and 10B have been omitted from Explanation 1(f) and (ii) of section 115JB of the Act, hereby bringing the profit/loss of 10A & 10B units within the purview of MAT?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act as its unit is in the special economic Zone and, hence its case is covered within the exemption provided in clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act ignoring the specific omission of the words 10A and 10B in Explanation 1(f) (ii) of section 115JB of the Act by Finance Act,2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2008.?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee is not liable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act as its unit is in the special economic Zone and, hence its case is covered within the exemption provided in clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act ignoring without appreciating that the clause (6) has been inserted by the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, w.e.f. 10.02.2006 concurrently within the insertion of section 10AA, also by the Special Economic Zone Act 2005, w.e.f. 10.02.2006 and hence, clause (6) of section 115JB of the Act is applicable only to 10AA units and not to 10A units since due to amendment in clause (f) and (ii) of Explanation 1 of seciion 115JB by Finance Act 2007, profit/Loss of 10A &10B units has been expressly brought within the purview of MAT w.e.f. AY2008-09.
3) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.”
Insofar as Grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that so far as the facts and circumstances in the instant assessment year are concerned, they stand on an identical footing to those considered by us in Grounds of appeal nos. 2 & 3 of the appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the earlier paras, therefore, our decision therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal also.
In the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed.
Now, we may take-up the cross-appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following Grounds :-
“I. Determination of deduction U/s.10A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act):
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have directed the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld.AO)- (a) not to exclude the interest income earned of Rs.3,82,125/- in determining the profits of the business;
Without prejudice to the above and in the alternate (a.i) to exclude the net interest income of Rs. 1,96,365/- in determining the profits of the business.
(b) not to exclude the sundry credit balances written back of Rs.4,59,910/- in determining the profits of the business.
(c) that as and when the appellant receives against unrealized export sale proceeds of Rs. 5,18,97,639/- the same should be considered as part of export turnover and consequently, the admissible deduction U/s. 10A of the Act should be revised accordingly.
2. It is humbly prayed that the relief as prayed for here-in-above should be granted.”
Insofar as Grounds of appeal nos. 1(a) and (b) are concerned, it was a common point between the parties that so far as the facts and circumstances in the instant assessment year are concerned, they stand on an identical footing to those considered by us in Grounds of appeal nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the earlier paras, therefore, our decision therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal also.
29. The last Ground in this appeal is with regard to the exclusion of unrealised export sale proceeds of Rs.5,18,97,639/- from the figure of export turnover in order to calculate deduction admissible u/s 10A of the Act. On this aspect, at the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Niru Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT(OSD-1), dated 27.04.2016 wherein by relying on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Tara Jewels Exports Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 662/Mum/2012 dated 29.01.2014, it was noticed that the Reserve Bank of India has not stipulated any time period for realisation of sale proceeds for SEZ units. The limited prayer of the assessee is that necessary directions be given to the Assessing Officer that as and when assessee would realise any sum out of the unrealised export sales of Rs.5,18,97,639/-, the same should be considered as part of the export turnover for the purpose of calculating deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
In our view, the plea raised by the assessee before us is fair and proper and the same is also not disputed by the ld. DR. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider any sum realised out of the unrealised export sales of Rs.5,18,97,639/- as part of the export turnover as and when the same is received as per the extant guidelines of Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of calculating deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above.
Resultantly, whereas the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, those of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2018.