Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This Tax Case (Appeal), filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the cash compensatory support, duty draw back and profit on sale of import entitlement licences will not form part of the turnover for the purpose of determining the deduction under Section 80HHC is valid in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that insurance, machinery hire charges, interest on deferred payment on export and interest on inter-corporate loans, will not form part of the turnover for the purpose of determining deduction under section 80HHC is valid in law?" 2. The respondent/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery for local sales as well as export. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of the export profits. The Assessing Officer declined to exclude certain receipts, namely, cash compensatory support, duty drawback and profit on sale of import entitlement licenses from the total turnover for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Similarly, the claim on interest on deferred payment, insurance claim, machinery hire charges on export and inter-corporate loans, the Assessing Officer denied the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. As against which, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal by placing reliance on Circular No.571 dated 1.8.1990 granted the benefit to the assessee in respect of cash compensatory support, duty drawback and profit on sale of import entitlement licenses. In so far as the issue that the insurance claim, machinery hire charges and rent charges cannot form part of the total turnover is concerned, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision reported in (2000) 245 ITR 548 (Bom.) (CIT V. Samir Diamonds Export Ltd.), held as follows: "6. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- a) International Research Park Laboratories Ltd. vs. Asst. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- a) International Research Park Laboratories Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax - ITAT Delhi Bench 'D'(Special Bench); b) Salgaocar Mining Industries Ltd. vs. Dy.DIT - I.T.A.I. - Pune Bench; and c) CIT vs. Samir Diamonds Export Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 548 (Bom.) We have gone through the aforesaid decisions. In the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 245 ITR 548 their Lordships held as under: "both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal had found that the interest on refunds and interest on loans fell under different head of income, viz., "Income from other sources". Moreover, under section 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time, the deduction of export profits was allowed from gross total income in accordance with the following formula: Profits of the X Export turnover business Total turnover" The same view was taken by the Special Bench of ITAT Delhi Bench as well as the Pune Bench. We, therefore, applying the same ratio, decide the issue in favour of the assessee. We order accordingly." 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present Tax Case (Appeal) before this Court contending that Circular No.571 dated 01.8.1990 is in relation to Clause (bb) of Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Clause (bb) of Explanation to Section 80HHC has been inserted vide Finance Act 1990 with effect from 1.4.1991 and the circular is dated 1.8.1990. The plea of the Revenue is that by Finance Act, 1990, with effect from 1.4.1991, Clause (bb) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC was inserted; since it was indicated in the Finance Act, 1990, Circular No.571 dated 1.8.1990 was issued, however, subsequently, by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991, with effect from 01.4.1991, Clause (bb) of Explanation to Section 80 HHC was omitted and clause (ba) of Explanation to Section 80HHC was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991, retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1987. The relevant provision reads as follows: "(ba) "total turnover" shall not include freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise, beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) Provided that in relation to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the expression "total turnover" shall have effect as if it also excluded any sum referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28" 5. The plea of the assessee is that Circular No.571 dated 1.8.1990 made it clear that the total turnover will not include any sum referred to in Clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of Section 28 and hence the Tribunal is correct in granting the benefit. We find that such a finding of the Tribunal is erroneous in view of Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1.4.1991, where clause (ba) of Explanation to Section 80HHC was inserted and made it clear that the expression 'total turnover' shall have its effect, as if it also excluded any sum referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, on or after 1.4.1991 and not before. Hence, circular No.571 dated 01.08.1990 has no relevance, in view of insertion of clause (ba) vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1.4.1991. The Circular would have application only if clause (bb) of Explanation to Section 80HHC, inserted by the Finance Act, 1990, is in force, which is not a case herein. We therefore hold that the first question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 6. As far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, which is form part of paragraph No.5 of the order of the Tribunal, we find that there is no decision rendered by the Tribunal on this issue. However, this issue can be considered in the light of clause (ba) of Explanation to Section 80HHC inserted vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1.4.1991. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that if the assessee is able to furnish any material to establish the deduction, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the same. 7. However, this issue can be considered in the light of clause (ba) of Explanation to Section 80HHC inserted vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1.4.1991. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that if the assessee is able to furnish any material to establish the deduction, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider the same. 7. It is made clear that if the assessee is able to establish that such amount is not relatable to freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise beyond the customs station, then the assessee will be entitled to move before the Assessing Authority and establish it as a matter of fact and claim the benefit. To this extent, we remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Tax Case (Appeal) stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.