IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 ITA.No. 218 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.567/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- M/S.ABAD FISHERIES, KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-2. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, ALONG WITH ITA 253 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ I.T.A. Nos. 218, 253, 257 & 262 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The main issue raised in all the appeals filed by the revenue is whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT (Appeals) allowing assessee's claim of deduction under Section 10B of the I.T. Act which provides for deduction to 100 per cent of EOU. The only reason for making disallowance is that shipment of marine products was made by the assessee as a shipper in the name of exporters. In other words, department's case is that assessee acted only as supporting manufacturer and the real export was made by the export house, and the assessee acting only as a shipper. After hearing standing counsel for the revenue, and after going through the orders of the Tribunal and records of the case we notice that the assessee received whole sale proceeds in foreign exchange and draw back incentives were also granted to the assessee. All this would indicate that the assessee was treated as exporter for all purposes. We do not I.T.A.218/2010 and connected cases 2 think the technical objection raised by the department can be a ground for disallowance of Section 10B benefit which is an incentive for export of goods by industries engaged in processing and manufacture. The facts found by the Tribunal establish beyond doubt that assessee was rightly granted Section 10B benefit by the first appellate authority. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently appeals are dismissed on this issue. Even though standing counsel argued that the other issues raised in I.T.A.Nos. 253 and 257 of 2010, which pertain to jurisdiction of CIT (Appeals) and also the liability for interest under Section 234D we do not think we should consider these issues because in the first place, the amount involved is not substantial and on the main issue we have dismissed the appeals. Even though one more question is raised relating to DEPB sale proceeds with reference to deduction under Section 80HHC, the position is the same. I.T.As. are therefore dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. I.T.A.218/2010 and connected cases 3