Income Tax : Supreme Court clarifies Section 80HHC deduction for Export-Oriented Units, emphasizing that profits eligible for deduction must be...
Income Tax : In the last quarter of the financial year 2000-0 1, a serious controversy arose in the Income-Tax Department and export circles of...
Income Tax : In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpre...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that interest on bank deposits from operational funds of a co-operative credit society is eligible for deducti...
Income Tax : Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encou...
Income Tax : The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Sec...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countr...
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
In the said assessment year, the assessee had earned premium of Rs.12,26,140/- on sale of export quota. The Assessing Officer held that this premium is covered by Section 28 (iiia/b/c) and accordingly computed deduction under Section 80HHC but without giving benefit of provisos under sub Section (3) to Section 80HHC. He observed that the export turnover in the previous year was exceeding Rs.10 crores and the assessee had not complied with the several conditions mentioned in the provisos. The sale proceeds received from sale of quota rights were excluded from benefit under the provisos to Section 80HHC(3) as this was not the regular business income of the assessee.
In this case as found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had called for the particulars regarding various items of income going into the computation of deduction under section 80HHC, for which the assessee had given the requisite details and particulars. Now the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment to hold that the very same items of receipt has to be excluded in computing relief under section 80HHC. In other words, the Assessing Officer, on a reappraisal of the very same details, which was called for by him and furnished by the assessee, would like to come to a different conclusion. This clearly tantamounts to reopening is merely on a change of opinion.
In the instant appeal, there are total three grounds. Ground No. 3 is general in nature. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raises the same issue. Both impugn the directions issued by Ld. CIT (A) to the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports 318 ITR 87 in view of the fact that the above decision has been reversed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 29.6.2010.
Assessee submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) and compute the deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC licenses in this case as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. We find substance in the above submissions of Shri Sudhir Sehgal and, therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra). The Assessing Officer should give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For statistical purposes, the appeal is allowed.
The decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (supra) has been set aside and reversed by the Supreme Court in their decision dated 8.02.2012 in the case of Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (C.A. No.1699/2012) and other cases. In this decision, it has been held that the DEPB credit falls under Clause (iiib) of Section 28 of the Act whereas the premium received thereon on transfer will represent profits chargeable under Section Clause (iiid) and the deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed accordingly. It was held that only 90% of the “profits” can be excluded by applying Explanation (baa) below Section 80HHC.
Issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Topman Exports V/s CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that not the entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB, but the sale value less the face value of the DEPB will represent profit on transfer of DEPB by the assessee. Respectfully following the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and accordingly the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the above assessment years do not call for any interference.
Hon’ble High Court held that provisions of Section 80-HHC required two conditions to be satisfied before an assessee could claim deduction there under. The two conditions being:- (i) the goods being export out of India and (ii) Sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable in convertible foreign exchange. The above conditions are satisfied cumulatively. Here sale made to UNICEF in India would not amount to export of goods. Accordingly the assessee is not entitled to deduction U/s 80-HHC of the Act.
We have today delivered judgment in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.26558 of 2010 (M/s Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and other connected appeals setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of the Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.
ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Supreme Court)- Memorandum explaining the clauses of the Finance Bill, 1991 contained in the circular dated 19.12.1991 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to come to the conclusion that the Parliament intended to exclude items which were unrelated to the export turnover from the computation of deduction and while excluding such items which are unrelated to export for the purpose of Section 80HHC, Parliament has taken due note of the fact that the exporter assessee would have incurred such expenditure in earning the profits and to avoid a distorted figure of export profits
