2016 (5) TMI 1226 - HC - Income Tax

Eligibility for deduction under Section 80 IB denied - manufacturing activity - Held that - We find that the assessee has not clearly established that the income was derived from manufacturing activities or that the income is directly relatable to the manufacturing activities. The assessee admittedly had trading activity. It is not clear as to whether the income, as indicated above, aggregating to approximately ₹ 30 lacs arose out of activities relating to manufacturing activity. The question no.1, for lack of appropriate evidence, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for computing deduction eligibility.
- Disallowance of business promotion expenditure and its justification.

Interpretation of Section 80IB:
The High Court analyzed the refusal of the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IB concerning various incomes like interest recovered from employees, rent, and interest on deposits. The court noted the lack of evidence linking these incomes to manufacturing activities, thus ruling in favor of the revenue. The court highlighted that the assessee failed to establish a direct connection between the incomes and manufacturing activities, leading to the affirmation of the Assessing Officer's decision.

Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenditure:
Regarding the disallowance of business promotion expenditure, the court examined the Tribunal's decision to uphold the disallowance of ?25 lakhs out of the total expenditure. The court reviewed conflicting submissions on whether the assessee provided details of the parties receiving gifts. While the revenue contended that such details were missing, the assessee argued that all necessary particulars were furnished, as evidenced by submissions to the CIT(A) and statutory auditors' report. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision lacked a proper basis in the available evidence and ordered a reconsideration by the Tribunal based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion:
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a reconsideration of the disallowance of business promotion expenditure by the Tribunal based on the evidence already on record. The court refrained from providing a definitive answer on the allowability of the expenditure, highlighting the importance of a thorough review by the Tribunal. The judgment underscored the necessity of establishing a clear link between incomes and eligible activities for deduction under Section 80IB, emphasizing the significance of evidence in tax assessments.