9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss in respect of export of trading goods was to be ignored while determining the appellant's entitlement to deduction u/s 80HHC(3)(c) of the Act. 2. Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect of liquid formulation manufactured at Ratlam. Summary: Issue 1: Deduction u/s 80HHC(3)(c) - Facts: The appellant, an Export House, filed a return declaring "nil" income for the assessment year 1996-97, claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A, including Rs. 3.78 crores u/s 80HHC. The appellant had a net loss from the export of goods, with a loss of Rs. 6.86 crores from goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers and a profit of Rs. 3.78 crores from self-manufactured goods. - Arguments: The appellant argued that the loss from trading goods should be ignored for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC(3)(c), contending that the term "profit" should uniformly include loss (negative profit) across sections 80HHC(1) and 80HHC(3)(c). The Department argued that under section 80HHC(3)(c), the loss must be adjusted against the profit from self-manufactured goods. - Findings: The court held that the word "profit" in section 80HHC(1) cannot include losses, whereas the word "profit" in section 80HHC(3)(c) includes losses/minus profit. The deduction u/s 80HHC(1) has to be a positive figure, and if the resultant figure after computing u/s 80HHC(3)(c) is a loss, no deduction can be claimed. The court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the loss from trading goods should be ignored and upheld the decisions of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal. Issue 2: Deduction u/s 80-IA - Facts: The appellant claimed a deduction of Rs. 85 lakhs u/s 80-IA for liquid formulation manufactured at Ratlam. The Assessing Officer reduced the eligible profit by deducting research and development capital expenditure and excluding miscellaneous income of Rs. 4.14 lakhs. - Findings: The Tribunal refused to decide the point raised by the assessee regarding the exclusion of miscellaneous income, as the assessee had accepted the Commissioner of Income-tax's order for the earlier years. However, the appellant pointed out that an appeal against the earlier order was filed but missed by the Tribunal. The court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide this point under section 80-IA, while confirming the rest of the Tribunal's order. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, confirming the Tribunal's order except for the point regarding section 80-IA, which was remanded back for reconsideration.
|
