9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by the Department regarding depreciation and exclusion of excise duty and sales tax. 2. Cross-objections by the assessee concerning the computation of deduction under section 80HHC by reducing 90% of the gross amount of rent and interest received instead of the net amount. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal filed by the Department In the appeal, the Department raised two grounds. Firstly, regarding the direction to withdraw depreciation based on the Supreme Court decision in Mahendra Mills Ltd. case. The Department argued that the decision was given when certain provisions were in place, which have since changed. Secondly, the Department contested the direction to exclude excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. The Departmental Representative cited favorable judgments to support their stance. The Authorized Representative for the assessee countered, highlighting that the depreciation was not mandatory before certain amendments and that the issue of excise duty and sales tax was settled in favor of the assessee by a High Court decision. The Tribunal found that the Special Bench decision favored the Department, and the High Court decision supported the Department's stance on depreciation. However, the issue of excluding excise duty and sales tax was decided in favor of the assessee by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed. Issue 2: Cross-objections by the assessee The assessee's cross-objections pertained to the computation of deduction under section 80HHC by reducing 90% of the gross amount of rent and interest received instead of the net amount. The Tribunal noted that the matter needed fresh consideration in light of a High Court decision that clarified the definition of "profits of the business" under section 80HHC. The Tribunal explained that only items subject to computation under section 28 of the Income-tax Act as profits of the business should be considered for deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal referred to the distinction between operational and non-operational business income, emphasizing that only non-operational income should be reduced by 90%. Citing a Special Bench decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of netting off interest income and rental income. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to allow netting off of interest income only if a nexus with the interest received is established. However, netting off of rental income was restricted to a statutory 10% deduction provided for expenses related to such income. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide on the cross-objections afresh in line with the High Court decision. The cross-objections were treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision on each matter.
|
