9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1189 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80HHC - revenue submitted that the Tribunal committed a fundamental error in as much as they have not considered eligibility of the assessees for deduction under Section 80HHC with respect to the profit on transfer of DEPB benefit - Held that - As the benefit is extended to exporters through an amendment by Finance Act 2005 with retrospective effect from 01/04/1998 Tribunal has not considered the issue at all appeals allowed by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal only on this issue and by restoring the matters to the Tribunal with specific direction to them to consider the eligibility of the respondent assessees for benefits under the proviso introduced and if the respondent assessees are found eligible then only to consider the question of computation of the relief by considering the judgment of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals 2010 (6) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Expenditure on issue of bonus shares - Held that - Issue stands decided against the Revenue in the decision in CIT v. General Insurance Corporation (2006 (9) TMI 116 - SUPREME Court). Following the above judgment of the Supreme Court appeal dismissed
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of respondent assessees for deduction under Section 80HHC 2. Computation of deduction under Section 80HHC based on Tribunal's order 3. Reversal of Bombay Tribunal's order by Bombay High Court 4. Expenditure on the issue of bonus shares Eligibility of respondent assessees for deduction under Section 80HHC: The judgment revolves around the challenge to remand orders issued by the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to recompute deduction under Section 80HHC for the respondent assessees. The Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of the proviso introduced through an amendment by Finance Act, 2005, with retrospective effect from 01/04/1998, to the respondent assessees. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the assessments, and the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the eligible deduction without considering the eligibility of the respondent assessees. The High Court found that the issue was not on computation but on eligibility, which the Assessing Officer had found against the assessees. Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders on this issue and restoring the matters to the Tribunal to consider the eligibility of the assessees for benefits under the proviso introduced. Computation of deduction under Section 80HHC based on Tribunal's order: The Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to compute the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC based on their decision, without considering the eligibility of the respondent assessees. The High Court highlighted that the issue was not on computation but on the eligibility of the assessees. The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders on this issue and restoring the matters to the Tribunal to first consider the eligibility of the respondent assessees for benefits under the proviso introduced, and then, if found eligible, to consider the computation of the relief based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court. Reversal of Bombay Tribunal's order by Bombay High Court: The High Court noted that the Bombay Tribunal's order relied upon by the Cochin Bench was reversed by the Bombay High Court in a different case. The High Court emphasized that the issue in this case was not on computation but on the eligibility of the respondent assessees for deduction under Section 80HHC. The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's orders on this issue and restoring the matters to the Tribunal to consider the eligibility of the assessees for benefits under the proviso introduced. Expenditure on the issue of bonus shares: Another issue raised pertained to the expenditure on the issue of bonus shares. The High Court referred to a decision by the Supreme Court in CIT v. General Insurance Corporation, where the issue was decided against the Revenue. Following the Supreme Court judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal on this issue.
|
