2014 (8) TMI 939 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - Held that - In M/s Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. (1980 (10) TMI 29 - BOMBAY High Court) the Tribunal s decision to the effect that once the materials are fed into the machine whether for trial production or for commercial production it would amount to manufacture was held to be incorrect as being inconsistent with the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd 1973 (7) TMI 3 - BOMBAY High Court . The case of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd (supra) it is seen has also been followed in the case of M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 215 - DELHI HIGH COURT). - No decision contrary either to M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) or to M/s Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been cited before us by the Department. Therefore we uphold that the learned CIT(A) has rightly followed the cases of M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly the CIT(A) s order in this regard is confirmed. - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
- Appeal against CIT(A) order for AY 2008-09
- Allowance of deduction u/s 80IB on Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy
- Initial year for deduction under Section 80IB
- Application for adjournment not pressed
- Challenge to treating AY 2004-05 as initial year
- Applicability of judgments on trading receipt vs. capital receipt

1. Allowance of deduction u/s 80IB on Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy:
The department's appeal for AY 2008-09 challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief on deduction u/s 80IB based on Excise Duty refund and interest subsidy. The department argued that the High Court's decision was not based on the merits of the issue but on the policy of tackling unemployment, which does not determine a trading receipt. However, the ITAT had previously ruled in favor of the assessee on similar grounds. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing relevant judgments by the Supreme Court and the Seaham Harbour Dock Company, supporting the treatment of such receipts as revenue receipts.

2. Initial year for deduction under Section 80IB:
The dispute arose regarding the initial year for claiming deduction under Section 80IB. The Assessing Officer considered AY 2003-04 as the initial year based on the date of commencement of production. However, the CIT(A) directed to treat AY 2008-09 as the 5th year of production, allowing a 100% deduction under Section 80IB. The ITAT supported the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on precedents like 'M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd.' and 'M/s Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd.', emphasizing the commercial commencement of production as the determining factor.

3. Application for adjournment not pressed:
The assessee had filed an application for adjournment, which was not pressed during the hearing, indicating readiness to proceed with the case.

4. Challenge to treating AY 2004-05 as initial year:
The department contested the CIT(A)'s decision to consider AY 2004-05 as the initial year of business commencement. They argued that the date of registration certification in 2003 should dictate the initial year. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s stance, aligning with the judgments in 'M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd.' and 'M/s Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd.'

5. Applicability of judgments on trading receipt vs. capital receipt:
The ITAT referenced various judgments, including 'M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd.' and 'M/s Metropolitan Springs Pvt. Ltd.', to determine the nature of receipts as trading or capital. The decisions emphasized the commercial commencement of production as crucial in distinguishing revenue receipts, supporting the CIT(A)'s stance in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the department's appeal for AY 2008-09, upholding the CIT(A)'s order regarding deduction under Section 80IB and the initial year for claiming the deduction, based on established legal precedents and interpretations of trading versus capital receipts.

← Previous Next →