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...
Madras High court in CIT Vs M/s Sea Rose Marines Pvt Ltd (Madras High Court) held that if the notice was not issued to the assessee properly then the ITAT had the right to review its own order. The ITAT had recalled the order and gave new decision after reviewing
Madras High Court held in CIT V/s Ms Orient Express that the amendment to sec 80HHC would have prospective effect from 2005 not retrospective effect.
The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of export of marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within the country as well which situation is covered by Section 80HHC (3)(b).
In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. CIT, High Court has held that that independent income having no nexus with exports would be covered by the words other similar receipts in clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act.
In the case of V. M. Salgaocar & Brother Pvt. Ltd vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Goa High Court has held that deduction u/s 80HHC is to be allowed to the extent of gross total income and not to the extent of business profit only.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
So far as the scrap is concerned, the sale proceeds from the scrap may either be shown separately in the Profit and Loss Account or may be deducted from the amount spent by the manufacturing unit on the raw material, which is steel in the case of the respondent-assessee
Assessing Officer while making certain additions by restricting 90% of the receipts by applying clause (baa) of Explanation to sec. 80HHC has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and scope of enquiry as directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) because it was not the subject matter of remand proceedings. Since the Assessing Officer was lacking the jurisdiction in the remand proceedings to go into the issue other than directed to be re-examined, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in the appeal proceedings against the order giving effect also has no jurisdiction to go into the said issue because under the provisions of sec. 251, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can exercise his jurisdiction on the issue on which the Assessing Officer could have exercised but did not do so.
Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Prabhakar v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 548 where the order of the Special Bench cited (supra) stands approved. It was clarified that the amendment made to clause (baa) of the Explanation below Section 80HHC which defines “profits of the business” in such a manner as to exclude receipts like interest, commission etc. which did not have an element of turnover, was introduced prospectively by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. the assessment year 1992-93 and the amendment did not operate retrospectively.
Regarding, the issue of technology transfer fee receipts, whether it constitutes operational income or not, learned counsel brought the analogy of these receipts to the developmental works receipts, which is adjudicated by the hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, there is a need for finding the fact on the comparability of these receipts on account of developmental work vis-a-vis technology transfer fees raised before us. In case, these receipts are comparable, in our opinion, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction under section 80HHC as an operational income in view of the finding of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (supra).
