9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 13 - SC - Income TaxExport of trading goods - Claim for adjustment of 10% of export incentive against indirect cost of trading goods while allowing deduction under section 80HHC - export income and income from export incentives - words attributable - concept of allocation - HELD THAT - According to the Department the definition of indirect costs will not cover expenses incurred for earning Other Incomes. However at the same time Department concedes that the assessee had earned export turnover of Rs.6, 50, 000 plus Rs.1, 60, 000 as Other Incomes. It also concedes that Rs.50, 000 is the indirect expense. From the record the words attributable in section 80HHC(3)(b) in the main section itself indicates that apportionment (principle of attribution) is not omitted from the said provision of section 80HHC(3)(b). As stated assessee has earned Other Income of Rs.1, 60, 000 apart from FOB value of exports of Rs.6, 50, 000. Therefore some expense has to be attributed to earning of Rs.1, 60, 000. If so the next question which arises is how to allocate the costs? As stated assessee has two incomes with one Common Pool of expenses and since principle of attribution has been retained in the scheme of section 80HHC both in terms of section 80HHC(3) clause (e) to the Explanation to section 80HHC(3)(a) (b) and (c) and in clause (baa) to the Explanation to section 80HHC instead of going into lengthy exercise of dividing such Common Expenses the assessee has estimated the reduction of export turnover by 10% of the other income of Rs.1, 60, 000 (in the above example). Ultimately clause (baa) to the Explanation is itself based on the assumption that 10% of the income would be an expense. We make it clear that we are not reading Explanation (baa) into section 80HHC(3)(b). What we say is as a Guidance Value/Factor 10% of the total Other Income of Rs.1, 60, 000 would be fair estimate. This guidance value is not flowing from clause (baa) but from the scheme of section 80HHC read with the Memorandum to the Finance Act of 1991. Take a reverse case if allocation of expenses is to be done on Actual Basis it would not only be very difficult but in some cases actual apportionment may not be in the interest even of the Department. In conclusion we may state that under section 80HHC(3)(b) one has to balance the principle of attribution with the concept of allocation . The concept of allocation is meant to reduce the incentive. However when allocation has to be balanced with the principle of attribution the object is to reduce the incentive and not to eliminate it. Thus we set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and restore the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly the civil appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue for determination in this batch of civil appeals was whether the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were correct in disallowing the assessee's claim for adjustment of 10% of export incentive against indirect costs of trading goods while allowing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework revolves around section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, which provides deductions in respect of profits retained for export business. Specifically, section 80HHC(3)(b) pertains to the export of trading goods, allowing deductions for profits derived from such exports as reduced by direct and indirect costs attributable to the export. Clause (e) of the Explanation to section 80HHC(3) defines "indirect costs" as costs, not being direct costs, allocated in the ratio of the export turnover in respect of trading goods to the total turnover. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted the term "attributable" in section 80HHC(3)(b) as indicating that apportionment (principle of attribution) is not omitted from the provision. The Court noted that the principle of attribution is retained in the scheme of section 80HHC, both in terms of section 80HHC(3) and clause (e) of the Explanation to section 80HHC(3)(a), (b), and (c). The Court rejected the Department's contention that the words "indirect costs" in clause (e) do not account for expenses incurred to earn other incomes, such as export incentives. The Court emphasized that the words "attributable to exports" in section 80HHC(3)(b) suggest that some expenses must be attributed to earning other incomes. Key evidence and findings: The Court considered an example where the assessee had export turnover of Rs. 6,50,000 and other income, including export incentives, of Rs. 1,60,000. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,000 (10% of Rs. 1,60,000) from the indirect costs of Rs. 50,000, resulting in a net indirect cost of Rs. 34,000. The Department, however, deducted the full Rs. 50,000 as indirect costs, arguing that the definition of "indirect costs" did not allow for such deductions. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle of attribution, allowing the assessee to reduce the indirect costs by 10% of the other income, resulting in a deduction of Rs. 16,000 from the indirect costs. The Court reasoned that this approach balances the principle of attribution with the concept of allocation, ensuring that the incentive is reduced but not eliminated. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court addressed the Department's argument that section 80HHC(3)(b) is a standalone provision and does not allow for apportionment of costs. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that the principle of attribution is inherent in the provision and that some expenses must be attributed to earning other incomes. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to reduce its indirect costs by 10% of the other income, thereby allowing a deduction of Rs. 16,000 from the indirect costs. This conclusion was based on the principle of attribution and the legislative intent behind section 80HHC. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The words 'attributable' in section 80HHC(3)(b) in the main section itself indicates that apportionment (principle of attribution) is not omitted from the said provision of section 80HHC(3)(b)." Core principles established: The Court established that the principle of attribution is integral to the interpretation of section 80HHC(3)(b), allowing for the apportionment of indirect costs in relation to other incomes derived from exports. Final determinations on each issue: The Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and restored the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, allowing the civil appeals filed by the assessee. The Court concluded that the assessee's method of reducing indirect costs by 10% of other income was valid under the principle of attribution.
|
