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...
CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (SC) – Supreme Court has on 08.02.2012 reversed Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals and confirming the decision of Special bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO held as follows:- Objective of DEPB scheme is to neutralize the incidence of customs duty on the import content of the export products. Hence, it has direct nexus with the cost of the imports made by an exporter for manufacturing the export products.
Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision in Al-Kabeer Exports Ltd Vs. CIT, reversing the High Court’s ruling and affirming the Tribunal’s special bench decision.
In thie case ITAT held that the non-compete fees was in the nature of capital expenditure and entitled for depreciation as intangible asset under Section 32(1 )(ii) of the Act. ITAT followed the in view of the Chennai Tribunal’s decision in the case of Real Image Tech. Export turnover of Export Oriented Unit can be included in export turnover of business while determining deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act
DCIT Vs. Divine International (ITAT Delhi) – The CIT(A) has denied the deduction in respect of the addition on account of the so called sundry creditors on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 80 HHC, it is only the income derived by the assessee from the export of such merchandise which is eligible and the addition on account of creditors cannot be considered as income derived from the exports.
Interest earned on fixed deposits have an immediate nexus with the export business would be treated as income from business and interest earned on fixed deposits which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business, it would be treated as income from other sources. The court opined that when the interest was earned […]
CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech Systems (Supreme Court of India)- Deduction under Section 80HHC (Section 80HHE also falls in Chapter VI‐A) is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where Section 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits under Section 115JA is clearly brought out.
Systematic Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – S. 80-IA (9) cannot be interpreted to mean that s. 80-IA deduction has to be reduced for computing s. 80HHC deduction. S. 80-IA (9) inserted w. e. f. 1.4.1989 provides that where any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking is claimed and allowed under s. 80-IA for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of Chapter VI-A (C) and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such eligible business. The Court had to consider whether the deduction allowed u/s 80-IA had to be reduced from the profits for computing deduction u/s 80HHC. HELD dissenting from Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49 (Che)(SB), Hindustan Mint & Agro Products 119 ITD 107 (Del) (SB), Great Eastern Exports (Del) & Olam Exports (India) Ltd 184 TM 373 (Ker) & deciding in favour of the assessee
Duncans Industries Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Under S. 80-HHC (1) the deduction is to be given in computing the total income of the assessee. In computing the total income of the assessee both profits as well as losses will have to be taken into consideration. Section 80-AB is relevant.
Jai Mica Supply Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that there were conflicting views on this point when the notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued.
Merck Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of sec. 94 are very much clear and it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the provisions and therefore, appellant should not have claimed the aforesaid loss knowing fully well that the provisions of sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions. Appellant has adjusted the aforesaid loss against the profit on sale of short term capital gains which is illegal. Appellant being a reputed company, advised by reputed and learned counsels for the past many years cannot be said to be not aware of the said provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, appellant’s submissions on this issue are rejected and it is held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
