2015 (7) TMI 724 - AT - Income Tax

Eligibility for deduction under s.80HHC - CIT(A) confirming the order of the AO holding that the deduction under s.80HHC was to be computed at NIL - Held that - In view of the judgement of Avani Exports 2015 (4) TMI 193 - SUPREME COURT has categorically ruled that having seen the twin conditions and since 80HHC benefit is not available after 1.4.05, the cases of exporters having a turnover below and those above 10 crores should be treated similarly, we are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the AO. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to allow the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC.
2. Interpretation of judgments in Topman Exports and Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals cases.
3. Eligibility for deduction under amended provisions of section 80HHC.
4. Compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal.
5. Acceptance of revised computation under section 80HHC.
6. Legality of the order passed by the CIT(A).
7. Justification of interest levied under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the Act.
8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC:
The appeal concerned the computation of deduction under section 80HHC for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The Assessee contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the deduction under section 80HHC should be computed at NIL rather than granting the claimed deduction of Rs. 38,08,898. The Assessee argued that it satisfied all conditions for the deduction under the amended provisions of section 80HHC and should be eligible for the claimed deduction.

2. Interpretation of judgments in Topman Exports and Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals cases:
The Assessee contended that the overall computation of deduction under section 80HHC would not be materially different under the judgments in the Topman Exports and Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals cases. The Assessee relied on these judgments to support its claim for the deduction.

3. Eligibility for deduction under amended provisions of section 80HHC:
The Assessee argued that it satisfied all conditions of the amended provisions of section 80HHC and should be eligible for the deduction computed at Rs. 38,08,898. The Assessee emphasized that the operation of the amended provision should be effective from the date of the amendment and not for earlier assessment years.

4. Compliance with specific directions of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to compute the deduction under section 80HHC in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the Topman Exports case. The Assessee contended that the AO did not comply with this direction, leading to the appeal before the ITAT.

5. Acceptance of revised computation under section 80HHC:
The Assessee argued that the revised computation under section 80HHC was correctly made and should have been accepted by the authorities below. The ITAT directed that the revised computation should be accepted.

6. Legality of the order passed by the CIT(A):
The Assessee challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the CIT(A), alleging that it was illegal and bad in law.

7. Justification of interest levied and penalty proceedings initiated:
The Assessee contended that the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was unjustified due to retrospective amendments. Similarly, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to allow the deduction under section 80HHC as claimed by the Assessee. The grounds related to interest levied and penalty proceedings were addressed accordingly based on the decision regarding the deduction computation.

← Previous Next →