2012 (7) TMI 57 - AT - Income Tax

Extended period of exemption / deduction u/s 10A / 10B - held that - had the period of five years not yet expired, the assessee would have been entitled for a larger period of ten years which is exactly the case of the assessee before us. Ad-hoc disallowance of manufacturing expenditure - manufacturing expenditures have increased by more than 100% in this year as compared to the previous year - increase of production is hardly 25% and reduction of salary is marginal - appellant has contended that increase in expense was largely attributable to increase in production for exports Held that - Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to justify such huge expenditure paid to its related sister concerns covered u/s. 40A(2)(a)/410A()(b) of the I.T. Act - assessee has not produced details and evidence to support the claim of such huge expenditure incurred - Necessary evidences were not furnished disallowance of 20% reduced to 10% - ad-hoc disallowance sustained - assessee s appeal is partly allowed Foreign exchange gains - whole of the gain is attributable to export sale realization of the current year - Held that - receipt by way of exchange rate fluctuation is includible in the total turnover of the assessee Employees and employer s contribution to P.F. and ESIC were made within the grace period Held that - payments were made after the due date but within the grace period allowed under P.F./ESIC Acts - CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming disallowance of Employers contribution to PF and ESIC made before filing Return of Income u/s. 139(1) - Assessing Officer be directed to allow Employers contribution to PF and ESIC made before filing Return of Income u/s. 139(1). Whether the assessee is entitled to relief under section 10B on such interest income Held that - Assessing Officer directed to recompute the income accordingly - assessee is not eligible for deduction on this interest income under section 80HHC in view of clause (baa) to explanation to section 80HHC Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHC - no relief has been claimed under section 10B, and to the extent the aggregate does not exceed the gross total income Held that - Exemption under section 10A of the Act is limited to 90% of the profits of the undertaking and the balance 10% of the profits on non-refundable as part of gross total income of the assessee is to be subjected to the deduction provided under Chapter VI-A of the Act before computing the total income of previous year relevant to the assessment year in the hands of the assessee - Assessing Officer directed to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of the deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Act on the balance profits in proportion to total turnover and recompute the income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Act

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of deduction under section 10B.
2. Deduction on foreign exchange gain and job work receipts.
3. Disallowance of manufacturing expenses on an ad-hoc basis.
4. Employees' and employer's contribution to PF and ESIC.
5. Treatment of interest on bank fixed deposits as business income.
6. Concurrent deduction under sections 10B and 80HHC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Deduction under Section 10B:
The primary issue was whether the assessee, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing and exporting garments, was entitled to claim deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2002-03. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, arguing that the assessee had already claimed the benefit for five years from assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01, exhausting the tax holiday period. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief, but the Revenue appealed. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, referencing the amendment effective from 1st April 1999, which extended the tax holiday period from five to ten years. The Tribunal cited precedents from the Delhi Bench in Tech Books Electronics Services (P) Ltd. and the Mumbai Bench in M/s. Consindia Pvt. Ltd., concluding that the assessee was eligible for the deduction for ten consecutive years starting from assessment year 1994-95.

2. Deduction on Foreign Exchange Gain and Job Work Receipts:
The AO argued that foreign exchange gains related to turnover from earlier years should be disallowed, and job work charges were not derived from the industrial undertaking, thus not eligible for deduction under section 10B. The Tribunal, however, found that the foreign exchange gain was attributable to the current year's export sales and referenced the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ambar Exports Pvt. Ltd., which included exchange rate fluctuations in the total turnover. Regarding job work charges, the Tribunal relied on the Mumbai Bench decision in M/s. Jewelex International P. Ltd., which clarified that such income, if part of the business profits, should be considered under section 10B. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on these issues.

3. Disallowance of Manufacturing Expenses on an Ad-hoc Basis:
The AO disallowed 20% of the manufacturing expenses due to a substantial increase compared to the previous year, which the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced to 10%. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence to support the claimed expenses. Despite the assessee's arguments against ad-hoc disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the 10% disallowance due to the lack of satisfactory explanations and evidence.

4. Employees' and Employer's Contribution to PF and ESIC:
The AO disallowed contributions to PF and ESIC made after the due date but within the grace period. The Tribunal, referencing the Mumbai Bench decision in M/s. Pik Pen Pvt. Ltd., ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the contributions as they were made within the permissible grace period.

5. Treatment of Interest on Bank Fixed Deposits as Business Income:
The AO and the Commissioner (Appeals) treated interest on bank fixed deposits as "Income From Other Sources." The Tribunal, however, followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v/s Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd., which held that interest earned from funds kept for business purposes should be treated as business income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to assess the interest income under the head "Income From Business."

6. Concurrent Deduction under Sections 10B and 80HHC:
The assessee sought concurrent deductions under sections 10B and 80HHC, limited to the extent that the aggregate does not exceed the gross total income. The Tribunal, referencing the Mumbai Bench decision in M/s. Genesys International Corporation Ltd., allowed the claim, directing the AO to allow the deduction under section 80HHC on the balance profits in proportion to total turnover.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals, providing a detailed analysis and ruling on each issue based on the applicable legal provisions and precedents. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory amendments and the necessity of producing adequate evidence to support claims for deductions and expenses.

← Previous Next →