2018 (8) TMI 2144 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HHF - income on export of cassette / software on the subject of building cheap houses - whether the exports has actually taken place and whether the conditions under section 80HHF are complied with? - CIT(A), in the first round, declined section 80HHF on the ground that censorship certificate was not available and the assessee cannot be any worse off in the remanded proceedings - HELD THAT - We are unable to see any merits in the stand of the learned counsel. Our careful perusal of material on record indicates that at no stage the satisfaction of conditions u/s 80HHF even came up for examination before the authorities below. The reference to censorship certificate was picked up from the arguments of the assessee, but that was not the limited aspect on which remand was made. All issues were left open as the adjudication was to be done de novo. In these circumstances, satisfaction of section 80 HHF conditions cannot be assumed or inferred. Unless the assessee specifically satisfies these condition, deduction under section 80HHF is out of question. The authorities below were thus justified in rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80HHF, and, even before us, no attempts have been made to satisfy the said conditions. Thus we approve the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below, and decline to interfere in the matter.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to correctness of the order dated 30th October 2014 passed by CIT(A) for assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2000-01.
2. Exemption under section 80HHF on export of cassette/software.
3. Necessity of a certificate from the censor board for granting deduction under section 80HHF.
4. Doubts on export despite rejection of claim under section 80HHF due to lack of a censor board certificate.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 2000-01 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised grievances related to the denial of exemption under section 80HHF for the export of cassette/software on the subject of "building cheap houses."

2. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) were criticized for not granting exemption under section 80HHF. The AO had rejected the claim of the appellant as there was no evidence to substantiate the export of the software. The appellant failed to prove the export, leading to the rejection of the claim for deduction under section 80HHF.

3. The issue of the necessity of a censor board certificate for granting deduction under section 80HHF was raised. The appellant argued that the matter was remanded to the AO for verification regarding the need for a censorship certificate. However, the authorities doubted the export despite the appellant's claims.

4. Despite the rejection of the claim under section 80HHF in previous proceedings due to the absence of a censor board certificate, doubts remained regarding the actual export. The appellant could not provide material evidence of exports, leading to the rejection of the deduction under section 80HHF. The authorities justified their decision, emphasizing the need for the appellant to satisfy the conditions under section 80HHF for the deduction to be allowed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the denial of deduction under section 80HHF due to the lack of evidence supporting the export claims and the necessity of satisfying the conditions stipulated under the relevant tax laws.