COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. KING METAL WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the revenue raises the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue and the assessee are agreed in stating that the first three questions stand covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the judgment delivered in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (IT Appeal (L) No. 2887 of 2009, dated 29-6-2010). In the circumstances, the first three questions shall stand answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench noted above.

(3.) Under Sub-section (1) of Section 80HHC, a deduction is provided to the extent of profits derived by the assessee from the export of goods. Sub-section (3) provides a formula for computing profits derived from the export. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee is a trader exporter. Hence, the assessee would be covered by Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) which provides as follows: