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 Mumbai held that compensation received by the assessee in out of court settlement for unilaterally terminating certain obliga...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that surplus on redemption of treasury bills is taxable under the head Capital Gains and not under the head ‘Pr...
Income Tax : Supreme Court held that profits earned on account of foreign exchange fluctuation cannot be included/ treated as derived from the ...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court held that Challenge to notice issued under section 154 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable under Article 226 ...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment of income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act other than income in respect of which AO has ...
These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment inasmuch as the question of law framed in both the appeals is identical and the circumstances are also virtually identical. The question of law that has been framed in these appeals is as under
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
section 80HHC, Deduction under Section 80HHC, Bombay High Court, export turnover,deduction under section 80HHC
Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC defines the term “profits of the business” to mean business profits as reduced by 90% of .. “receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature“. The Tribunal took the view, on the basis of Bangalore Clothing 260 ITR 371 (Bom) that receipts towards recovery of freight, insurance
In the present case the assessee had taken loans from the bank on which the interest was paid and as a security for those loans, FDRs in question were kept with the bank and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the netting of interest for the interest income and expenses thereto. This is also categorically answered in Shri Ram Honda (supra). The Court was of the opinion that even in a case where the exporter is required to mandatorily keep monies in fixed deposit, in order to avail credit facility for the export business, and interest earned on fixed deposits for the purpose of availing of credit facilities from the bank, it was held that the interest income has to be treated as “income from other sources” and not business income as it does not have an immediate nexus with the export business.
Assessing Officer has not made out any case for disallowing even a part of deduction allowable under Section 80IA. Once any condition laid down under Sub Section 10 of Section 80IA are not satisfied that Sub Section cannot be invoked and therefore no disallowance of deduction under that section can be made.
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Catapharma (India) (P.) Ltd.- Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Deductions – Exporters – Assessment year 1997-98 – Whether excise duty and sales tax form part of total turnover while computing deduction under section 80HHC – Held, no.
In the present case during the course of assessment proceedings it was noticed that there were credit balance in the names of two parties amounting to Rs.3,52,581/- appearing in the books of account of the assessee. On being asked to verify the same, the assessee agreed to surrender it. The said cessation of liability could not be treated to have been earned from business of export and, thus, shall not form part of the turnover of the export business.
In the last quarter of the financial year 2000-0 1, a serious controversy arose in the Income-Tax Department and export circles of Mumbai. The controversy related to the issue whether deduction U/S 80-HHC of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), is allowable in respect of export incentives viz. cash compensatory support (CCS), duty drawback (DDK) and profit on sale of import entitlement licences (I/L)
