2011 (11) TMI 466 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB - disallowance as Service Income Interest on Bank Deposits Interest income on loan to employees Commission received Compensation received from sundry debtors for delayed payments have no nexus with industrial undertaking - Held That - In view of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Sterling Foods (1999 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) wherein held that it was just not sufficient that commercial connection was established between the profits and industrial undertaking. The industrial undertaking has to be the source of the profit and not a means to earn the profit. The industrial undertaking should be the direct source of that profit and not a means to earn the profit. The fact finding authority (Assessing Officer) on a thorough analysis of the entire materials placed on record and discussing the same threadbare has arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the training activities carried out by the assessee at its headquarters have no direct nexus with the industrial undertaking as such. While such being the factual finding arrived at by the fact finding authority and confirmed by the CIT(A) and also the ITAT no material has been placed before us by the assessee to take a contra view - As in the whole process of orders passed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT no perversity of approach has been found thus re-iterating the well established principle of law that while sitting on appeal under Section 260A this Court cannot set aside the factual findings recorded by the fact finding authorities particularly in the absence of any adverse approach by them - Deduction rightly dis-allowed - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Service Income
2. Interest on Deposits with Banks and Financial Institutions
3. Interest Received from Loans Given to Employees
4. Cash Discount Arising from Prepayment of Dues
5. Commission Received
6. Compensation Received from Sundry Debtors for Delayed Payments
7. Imported Materials

Detailed Analysis:

1. Service Income:
The appellant/assessee claimed Rs.10,79,000 towards service income under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, stating that the income was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking but from training activities carried out at the headquarters, which had no direct nexus with the industrial undertaking. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the AO's decision. The court concluded that the service income was not derived directly from the industrial undertaking, as required by Section 80-IB, and thus, the disallowance was justified.

2. Interest on Deposits with Banks and Financial Institutions:
The assessee claimed Rs.14,19,000 under this head, which was disallowed by the AO on the grounds that the income was not derived directly from the industrial undertaking. The CIT(A) and ITAT upheld this disallowance. The court found no material to contradict the findings of the lower authorities and confirmed that interest on deposits did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB.

3. Interest Received from Loans Given to Employees:
The claim of Rs.25,51,000 was disallowed by the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT, as the income was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The court agreed with the lower authorities, stating that the interest received from loans given to employees did not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and thus was not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB.

4. Cash Discount Arising from Prepayment of Dues:
The AO disallowed the claim of Rs.19,84,000, but the CIT(A) allowed it, stating that cash discounts received on purchases directly related to manufacturing activity should reduce the purchase value, thereby increasing the profit from the industrial undertaking. The ITAT upheld this decision. The court found the CIT(A)'s reasoning valid and confirmed the allowance of the cash discount under Section 80-IB, provided it related to manufacturing activity and not trading goods.

5. Commission Received:
The assessee claimed Rs.3,02,000, which was disallowed by the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT on the grounds that the income was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The court upheld the disallowance, agreeing that commission income did not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and thus was not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB.

6. Compensation Received from Sundry Debtors for Delayed Payments:
The claim of Rs.15,35,000 was disallowed by the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT, as the income was not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The court found no reason to overturn the lower authorities' findings and confirmed that compensation for delayed payments did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB.

7. Imported Materials:
The AO disallowed the claim of Rs.59,50,000, stating that the income from selling imported materials was a trading activity and not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The CIT(A) allowed the claim in part, reducing the eligible amount to Rs.27,01,000, which was upheld by the ITAT. The court agreed with the lower authorities, confirming that the profit from trading imported materials did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming the disallowances made by the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT. The court held that the income claimed under various heads did not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and thus did not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The substantial question of law was answered against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

← Previous Next →