Case Law Details
Audco India Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Both the conditions as mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of the third proviso to section 80HHC(3) are required to be satisfied for allowing deduction under section 80HHC in respect of DEPB income in cases where the turnover exceeds Rs. 10 crores.
In this case the assessee could not produce any evidence before AO or CIT to show that the assessee had satisfied both the conditions nor any such evidence had been produced before us. Before the AO the assessee admitted that the conditions were not satisfied and therefore AO was not required to allow the claim because amended provisions were applicable at the time of passing the order of AO. This is not a case of taking one of the possible views and therefore the judgements relied upon by the Learned AR are not applicable. This is a case of taking incorrect view and allowing the claim incorrectly which has caused prejudice to the interest of revenue. The Learned AR fairly conceded that the assessee had no case on merit and the claim is not admissible to it in view of the judgement of Honourable High Court of Mumbai in case of Kalpataru Colours Ltd (supra). Therefore in our view the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial. We therefore see no infirmity in the order of CIT directing the AO to withdraw the claim.
M/s. Audco India Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (2)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
ITA No. 5992/M/2006
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
