2008 (10) TMI 637 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 80HHC and 10-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the eligibility of deduction for export turnover of a unit situated in the Export Promotion Zone (EPZ) while computing total income.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80HHC and 10-A regarding deduction for export turnover in EPZ:

The case involved a dispute over whether the export turnover of a unit in the EPZ should be considered for deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that income from the EPZ unit did not form part of total income u/s 10-A, hence not eligible for deduction. The tribunal held that the export turnover from the EPZ unit should be included for computing the deduction u/s 80HHC, as the provision did not exclude such turnover. The revenue contended that once income from the EPZ unit was excluded from total income, it couldn't be reintroduced for deduction purposes. However, the tribunal found no exclusion of Section 80HHC in the relevant provisions.

Issue 2: Application of Section 10A(4)(iii) and interpretation of deductions under Section 80HH, 80HHA, 80-I, and 80J:

The counsel for the assessee argued that Section 10A(4)(iii) introduced in 1981 excluded specific deductions but not Section 80HHC. The revenue argued that since Section 80HHC was introduced in 1983, it couldn't have been excluded in 1981. The tribunal noted that subsequent amendments included exclusions for other provisions but not for Section 80HHC. The counsel for the assessee relied on beneficial interpretations for the assessee, citing relevant case laws.

Conclusion:

The High Court held that the export turnover from the EPZ unit should not be excluded while computing the deduction u/s 80HHC. The deduction formula in Section 80HHC(3) did not refer to total income, and the export turnover was integral to the computation. The court emphasized the beneficial nature of Section 80HHC for encouraging exports and interpreted the provision accordingly. The question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.