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 : The dispute concerned whether deduction under Section 80IB should be reduced by the amount already allowed under Section 80HHC. IT...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before cal...
Income Tax : The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening foun...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening inval...
Income Tax : The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that exc...
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).
Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that that even if any freight, telecommunication or insurance expense during the year, are reduced from the export turnover, such sums will also have to be reduced from the total turnover of the company for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 10A.
In this view of the matter, we opine that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in reversing the view taken by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal is proper, does not suffer from any error of law and therefore we answer the questions posed in the affirmative to hold that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction even before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years.
While working out the profits and gains which qualify for deduction under Section 80HH, one has to necessarily restrict the income which is derived from the industrial undertaking and nothing beyond. Thus, for the purpose of Section 80HH, the income of that industrial undertaking which got into the reckoning of the book profit for the purposes of Section 32AB has to be identified and that alone would be included in the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of working out the relief under Chapter VIA.
The respondent-assessee, in the present case, had in its return of income tax, claimed deduction under Section 80IA at Rs. 12.01 crores and Section 80HHC of the IT Act at Rs. 5.75 crores and declared the total income of Rs. 82.47 lacs. The AO allowed the deduction under Section 80IA to the tune of Rs. 14.04 crores and deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of Rs. 2.42 crores.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that unrealised export turnover should be included in the Total Turnover while it is not treated as Export Turnover for purposes of computing the allowable deduction under Section 80HHC ?
