2017 (5) TMI 110 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction U/s 80IE of the Act - eligible of deduction towards excess provision written back - foreign currency fluctuation gain - manufacturing work in Arunachal Pradesh - Held that - the issues are covered in favor of the assessee by the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 2016 (7) TMI 1050 - ITAT JAIPUR , where it was held that The foreign currency gain is the part of raw material there is nothing wrong in this claim. Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IE of the Act. As regards excess provision written back it was held that this is the expenditure, which has been booked in excess in earlier year and by this amount the deduction u/s 80IE has been reduced in the said year since the deduction is available for the unit for consecutive 10 years. AO s action in treating the excess provision written back as income cannot be justified, hence deleted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by revenue against order allowing deduction U/s 80IE of the Act for foreign currency fluctuation gain and excess provision written back.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the revenue's challenge against the deduction allowed under Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for foreign currency fluctuation gain and income earned through excess provision written back for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee, a joint venture firm, was involved in manufacturing, fabrication, and commissioning work in Arunachal Pradesh, eligible for the deduction.

2. The Assessing Officer (AO) had excluded the miscellaneous income and foreign currency gain from the deduction under Section 80IE, leading to additions in the total income. However, the ld CIT(A) allowed the deduction by considering the provisions made for expenses in earlier years and the foreign currency fluctuation gain as part of the manufacturing income of the unit. The AO's interpretation was deemed incorrect, as the deduction was available for the unit for ten consecutive years.

3. The appellant argued that the provision written back and the foreign currency fluctuation gain were integral parts of the unit's income, which the AO wrongly excluded. The ld CIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT had previously allowed the deduction for the same issues in the appellant's case for the AY 2011-12, which was upheld in subsequent orders.

4. The ITAT, following the previous decisions, held that the AO was unjustified in disallowing the deduction for excess provision written back and foreign currency fluctuation gain. As the issues were already settled in favor of the assessee for the previous assessment year, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed based on the principles established in the earlier rulings.

5. The judgment reaffirmed the decisions made in the appellant's favor for the AY 2011-12, emphasizing the consistent application of the law in allowing deductions under Section 80IE. The dismissal of the revenue's appeal was based on the precedents set by the ld CIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT, ensuring the correct application of tax laws and provisions for the benefit of the assessee.