IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus M/S. SALGAONKAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., ... Respondent Mrs. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. M. Sonak with Mr.J. Supekar, Advocates for the Respondent. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7th July, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. This is an Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the impugned order, the Income Tax Tribunal has passed an order of remand. 2. In the present case, the Respondent - assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessment Officer found that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of dollar price difference amounting to Rs.83,79,954/-. The Assessment Officer held that, the actual rate at which the goods were exported should be taken as the export sale proceeds and any additional benefit accrued to the assessee on account of foreign currency rate difference cannot be treated as income from the export activity. The Assessment Officer disallowed the claim of Rs.83,79,954/- being exchange rate fluctuation of dollar price difference claimed as deduction under Section 80HHC on the ground that it is not profit and gains of business. The Respondent - assessee preferred an Appeal against the order of the Assessment Officer. The Appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC treating the amount of Rs.83,79,954/- as the part of the profits of the export business. An Appeal was preferred by the Appellant before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal ) was quashed and set aside and the Assessing Officer has been directed to reconsider the issue in the light of the law laid down by the Special Bench in a case of ACIT V/s. Prakash Lal Shah (306 ITR 1(AT). While passing an order of remand, the Tribunal observed that it is not clear as to whether the amount was received by the Respondent - assessee in convertible foreign exchange within the period specified and whether the claim made by the Respondent - assessee pertains to the exports made in this year or not. The Assessing Officer has been directed to reconsider the matter. 3. The impugned order of remand does not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeal and we dismiss the same accordingly. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*