2009 (9) TMI 684 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 80-IA(9) in conjunction with Section 80HHC.
2. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings.
3. Levy of interest u/s 234D.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 80-IA(9) in conjunction with Section 80HHC:
The revenue's appeals challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that Section 80-IA(9) was introduced to prevent taxpayers from claiming repeated deductions on the same eligible income. The CIT(A) had relied on the Mumbai ITAT's decision in M/s. Iflunik Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which held that as long as the assessee did not claim more than 100% deduction of profits under both Sections 80-IB and 80HHC, the deductions should be computed independently. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the deductions independently, ensuring that the total deductions do not exceed 100% of the eligible profits. The Tribunal also referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej Agrovet Ltd., which clarified that Section 80-IA(9) applies only when deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IA are claimed for the same undertaking. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

2. Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings:
The assessee's challenge to the reassessment proceedings was rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal did not find it necessary to consider this issue further, given the decision on the merits of the case.

3. Levy of interest u/s 234D:
The assessee contested the levy of interest u/s 234D, arguing that the provision applies only from assessment year 2004-05 onwards. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in ITO v. Ekta Promoters (P.) Ltd., which held that Section 234D applies prospectively from 1-6-2003. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer not to levy interest u/s 234D for the assessment year 2003-04.

Conclusion:
The revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed, except for the objection regarding the levy of interest u/s 234D, which was allowed.