2017 (5) TMI 1640 - HC - Income Tax

Principle of netting off of interest against interest earned - Deduction claimed u/s 80HHC in respect of interest income forming part of profits of the business - Held that - Even the case of Dhadda Exports (2016 (9) TMI 1251 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) has been clarified in case of M/s Chordia Trading Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer 2016 (12) TMI 358 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , even otherwise in view of the decision in case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and the decision of this court, the principle of netting off is required to be laid therefore, the issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee against the department.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of interest income.
2. Classification of interest income as "Income from other sources" vs. "Business income".
3. Netting off interest received with interest expenses for computation of deduction under Section 80HHC.
4. Interpretation of "profits of the business" under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC.
5. Applicability of precedents and judicial decisions on the issues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80HHC in Respect of Interest Income:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision which upheld the AO and CIT(A)'s orders disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC for interest income. The Tribunal relied on prior decisions, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to conclude that interest income does not qualify as export income for Section 80HHC deductions. Specifically, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that interest from fixed deposits or loans is not derived directly from export business activities.

2. Classification of Interest Income as "Income from Other Sources" vs. "Business Income":
The Tribunal affirmed that interest earned on deposits or advances to third parties should be classified as "Income from other sources" and not as business income. This classification was based on the principle that such interest income does not directly flow from the export business. The Tribunal cited multiple cases, including CIT vs. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation and Multi Investment Corporation vs. CIT, to support this classification.

3. Netting Off Interest Received with Interest Expenses for Computation of Deduction under Section 80HHC:
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for netting off interest received with interest expenses. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the interest income is established as derived from export business, it cannot be included in the computation for deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, which held that interest on fixed deposits cannot be netted off against interest paid on loans unless explicitly allowed by law.

4. Interpretation of "Profits of the Business" under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC:
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "profits of the business" under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, emphasizing the specific use of the word "the" before "business," indicating the profits must be directly from export business. The Tribunal referenced the case of K.S. Subbiah Pillai & Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, which clarified that only profits computed under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" are relevant for Section 80HHC deductions.

5. Applicability of Precedents and Judicial Decisions:
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, which discussed the computation of "profits of the business" and the principle of netting off. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the interest income in the present case did not meet the criteria for being derived from export business. Additionally, the appellant cited various High Court decisions, including M/s Chordia Trading Corporation vs. ITO and K.G. Petrochem Ltd. vs. CIT, which supported the principle of netting off. Despite these references, the Tribunal upheld its decision based on the specific facts and applicable precedents.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld, confirming that the interest income in question should be classified as "Income from other sources" and not as export income for Section 80HHC deductions. The principle of netting off was not applicable in this case, as the interest income was not derived from the export business. The interpretation of "profits of the business" under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC was reaffirmed, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus with export activities.