2016 (7) TMI 908 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 10B denied - Held that - In the present case, the income of the assessee from maintenance or services was not assessed as its income from business. It has been assessed as income from other sources . It has also to be kept in mind that the assessee has nowhere pleaded that service was only provided on the items sold by it. Therefore, to my mind, the ld.Revenue authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the assessee. I do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act on income of ?16,05,675/-.
2. Classification of income from maintenance charges as "Income from other sources" rather than "Business income."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Deduction under Section 10B:
The primary issue in this case was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for an amount of ?16,05,675/- earned as maintenance charges. The assessee argued that this income should be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking for the purpose of computing the deduction under section 10B. The assessee relied on the interpretation that section 10B(4) allows for the computation of profits derived from export by apportioning the profits of the business of the undertaking in the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover.

The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents including the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of CIT Vs. Hritnik Exports P.Ltd., Maral Overseas Ltd. Vs. ACIT, and Lubrizol Advanced Materials India P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT. These decisions highlighted that section 10B(4) provides a specific formula for computing eligible profits, which includes the entire profits of the business of the undertaking, not just those directly derived from export activities.

2. Classification of Income from Maintenance Charges:
The second issue was whether the income from maintenance charges should be classified as "Income from other sources" or "Business income." The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had classified this income under "Income from other sources," thereby excluding it from the computation of deduction under section 10B. The CIT(A) supported this classification by referring to judicial decisions such as Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, C.C. XX v. Rajesh Kumar Drolia and Indian Additives Ltd., which held that income from maintenance and service charges does not have a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and thus should not be included in the profits eligible for deduction under section 10B.

The Tribunal upheld the view of the Revenue authorities, stating that the income from maintenance charges was not derived from the manufacturing activity of the industrial undertaking. It noted that the assessee had not demonstrated that the maintenance services were exclusively provided on items sold by it. Hence, the income from maintenance was rightly assessed as "Income from other sources" and not as "Business income."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) that the income of ?16,05,675/- from maintenance charges does not qualify for deduction under section 10B as it was not derived from the manufacturing activity of the industrial undertaking. The Tribunal emphasized that the income was correctly classified as "Income from other sources" and not as part of the business income of the undertaking.