IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-7-2011 THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Tax Case (Appeal) No.1082 of 2004 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Coimbatore .. Appellant/Appellant Versus M/s.Premier Polytronics Ltd. 185, ATD Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-18. .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, dated 13.7.2004, in ITA No.2316 (Mds.) of 1996, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appeal No.564-C & 563-C/96-97 dated 23.8.1996 on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Coimbatore and PAN/GIR No.CV-9042/SR-I/CBE dated 30.5.1996 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Range, Department, Special Range I, Coimbatore. For Appellant: Mr.K.Suresh Kumar for Mr.J.Naresh Kumar For Respondent: Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) Following are the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1994-1995: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sales tax and excise duty have to be excluded from the total turnover while working out the deduction under Section 80HHC in relation to export profits? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be worked out without deducting carried forward loss from earlier https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years against the profits of the current year disregarding the provisions of Section 80AB and 80B(5)?" 2. Both the parties agree that the issues are covered by the decision of the Apex Court. As far as the first issue is concerned, it is answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works (2007 Volume 290 ITR 667). The second issue is answered against the assessee, in view of the decision reported in Aswini Gold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007 Volume 290 ITR 183 (Mad.). 3. Thus, while answering the first issue in favour of the assessee, the second issue stands answered against the assessee. The Tax Case Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I (Appeals), Coimbatore 2. The Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Department Special Range I, Coimbatore 3. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, 3rd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Madras-90 1 cc To Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate, SR.41469 1 cc To Mr.J.Nareshkumar, Advocate, SR.41492 Tax Case (Appeal) No.1082 of 2004 UG (CO) RH (18.8.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/