9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the export of audio software qualifies for deduction u/s 80HHC for the assessment year 1999-2000, given that relief under section 80HHF is available only from the assessment year 2000-01? 2. Whether the export of music software can be equated with the export of goods for the purpose of section 80HHC? Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Deduction u/s 80HHC vs. 80HHF The assessees, companies engaged in the export of music software, claimed deductions u/s 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that relief for music software exports is available u/s 80HHF only from the assessment year 2000-01 onwards. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the income allowing deduction u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal upheld this decision, following the Bombay High Court's ruling in Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Asst. CIT [2004] 267 ITR 488. The court concluded that the introduction of section 80HHF from April 1, 2000, does not negate the applicability of section 80HHC for the assessment year 1999-2000. Issue 2: Classification of Music Software as Goods The court examined whether music software qualifies as "goods" or "merchandise" u/s 80HHC. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A. P. [2004] 271 ITR 401 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 282 ITR 273, the court noted that "goods" include both tangible and intangible properties, provided they have utility, are capable of being bought and sold, and can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, and possessed. The court found that the music software exported by the assessees met these criteria, thus qualifying as "goods" under section 80HHC. Conclusion: The court held that the assessees are entitled to deductions u/s 80HHC for the assessment year 1999-2000. The appeals were dismissed, affirming that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration.
|
