2007 (2) TMI 128 - HC - Income Tax

AO contended that (i) Relief shall calculated u/s 80HHC (3)(b) instead of 80HHC(3)(a) (ii) Excluded the interest income from the computation of relief u/s 32AB Held that AO contention was not correct and allowed assessee appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief under sections 80HHC(3)(a) and 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Relief under section 32AB for interest income different from business income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Relief under sections 80HHC(3)(a) and 80HHC(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The case involved the appellant, the Revenue, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the relief claimed by the assessee, a company engaged in the printing and publication business, under sections 80HHC(3)(a) and 80HHC(3)(b) for the assessment year 1989-90. The Assessing Officer had computed the relief under section 80HHC(3)(b) due to the company having two units - one for local business and another for export business. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that the Bangalore unit was 100% export-oriented, eliminating the need for the ratio of export turnover to domestic turnover. The court referred to a previous judgment in CIT v. Rathore Brothers, emphasizing the need for sufficient material to support the deduction claimed, especially when it pertains entirely to exports. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Relief under section 32AB for interest income different from business income:
Regarding the relief under section 32AB, the Assessing Officer had excluded interest income, which was not part of the business income, from the computation of relief. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The court highlighted the calculation process under section 32AB, emphasizing that the profits of the eligible business should be computed in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, not the Income-tax Act. The court cited the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT to support the calculation methodology under section 32AB. Applying the principles from previous decisions, the court dismissed the appeal and ruled in favor of the assessee against the Revenue on the substantial questions of law raised.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras upheld the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the correct interpretation and application of sections 80HHC(3)(a), 80HHC(3)(b), and 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.