IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 ITA.No. 116 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.1323/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- M/S.INDIAN RESINS & POLYMERS, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 116 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether exchange rate fluctuation received by the exporter should be reckoned for the purpose of determination of deduction of export profit under Section 80HHC of the Act. In this case, exchange rate fluctuation went in favour of the assessee and the department's case is that the same should not be reckoned for the purpose of determination of export profit . However, the Tribunal held against the department holding that exchange rate is received on the export sales made which qualify for deduction. Even though counsel for the revenue has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in RAVINDRAN NAIR's case, 295 ITR 228, we do not think that decision stands in the way of respondent-assessee getting the benefit because what the Supreme Court has held is that profit that is not relatable to export only should be excluded in the computation of 2 eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk