9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act. 2. Claim under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act. 3. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act: The assessee, a 100% export unit engaged in exporting computer software, claimed a deduction of Rs. 86,96,634 under Section 80HHE. The Assessing Officer (AO) disagreed with the computation, including management and technical consultancy receipts in the business income, thus recalculating the total business receipts at Rs. 3,67,39,021 and the deduction at Rs. 53,80,416. The assessee argued that only the income from the NOIDA unit should be considered, excluding the consultancy unit at New Delhi. The AO maintained that the "total business income" should be considered as per Section 80HHE. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's computation, stating that the total turnover of the business, not just the export turnover, should be considered. This interpretation was supported by judicial decisions, including the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd., which emphasized that the total turnover of the entire business must be considered for deduction purposes under Section 80HHE. 2. Claim under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act: The assessee raised a new claim for a deduction under Section 10A amounting to Rs. 1,11,24,443, supported by a Chartered Accountant's report in Form 56F. The CIT(A) refused to entertain this claim, stating that the AO had limited jurisdiction under Section 143(3)(i) and could not entertain fresh claims not arising from the AO's order. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not exercising jurisdiction, as the assessee is entitled to challenge the income assessed or tax determined under Section 246A. The Tribunal noted that the failure to file the audit report along with the return is not a material objection, as several High Courts have held such provisions to be directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to record a finding on the deduction claimed under Section 10A, as all material was available on record and verified by the AO. 3. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act: The assessee contended that interest under Section 234B was wrongly charged. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Kishan Lal. The Tribunal noted that this ground of appeal was stated to be consequential during the hearing and directed for re-computation of interest based on the finally determined income. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, upholding the computation of deduction under Section 80HHE but remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for considering the claim under Section 10A. The Tribunal also directed a re-computation of interest under Section 234B based on the final income determination.
|
