9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80HHC. 2. Deduction under Section 80-IA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80HHC: The primary grievance of the assessee was the rejection of their claim for a deduction of Rs. 3,78,80,936 under Section 80HHC. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the scheme of Section 80HHC, which was amended to boost exports by giving incentives to exporters. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not consider the difference in provisions applicable to holders of Export House Certificates or Trading House Certificates compared to those without such certificates. Specifically, the assessee claimed that profits from the export of trading goods should not be included in the deduction calculation if the turnover was disclaimed in favor of supporting manufacturers. The assessee declared Nil income and claimed deductions under Chapter VIA, including the disputed amount under Section 80HHC. The computation of profits for deduction under Section 80HHC(3)(c) involves profits from self-manufactured goods, goods manufactured by others, and export incentives. The Assessing Officer noted a net loss from exports, leading to the disallowance of the deduction claim, arguing that the deduction is only allowable when there is a profit from export activities. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing that the word "profit" in Section 80HHC(1) does not include loss, and thus, the proviso to Section 80HHC(1) is not applicable when there is a net loss. The CIT(A) highlighted that the calculation of net profit or loss for the purpose of Section 80HHC(3)(c) involves aggregating profits and losses from different export activities. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the principle of beneficial interpretation does not apply when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. The Tribunal emphasized that the deduction under Section 80HHC is available only on the net result of both manufacturing and trading export activities. Since the net result was a negative figure, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's argument that the method followed in previous years should continue, noting that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax assessments. 2. Deduction under Section 80-IA: The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 85,81,700 under Section 80-IA for the Formulation Unit at Ratlam. The Assessing Officer reduced this claim by Rs. 28,29,355, representing R&D Capital Expenditure, and excluded miscellaneous income of Rs. 4,14,932 from the profits of the Industrial Undertaking. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, following his own orders from previous years. The assessee argued that the deduction under Section 80-IA should be calculated on profit before the said deduction and that the apportionment of R&D expenses was arbitrary. The assessee also contended that miscellaneous income should be considered part of the business profits of the Industrial Undertaking. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the CIT(A) had consistently applied the same method in previous years and that there was no evidence of an appeal pending against the CIT(A)'s order for the previous year. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the R&D expenses and exclude miscellaneous income from the profits for the purpose of the deduction under Section 80-IA. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders regarding the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80HHC and the reduction of the deduction under Section 80-IA. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear statutory language and the proper application of the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
|
