9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 819 - AT - Income TaxSection 10B deduction - Holding assessee s duty drawback and interest subsidy eligible for sec. 10B - Held that - Hon ble apex court s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT has settled the law about the similar kind of interest subsidy reducing revenue expenditure as eligible for sec. 80I deduction. Be that as it may, learned co-ordinate bench has declined Revenue s similar arguments in preceding paragraph. We therefore adopt the said reasoning mutatis mutandis affirm the CIT(A) s findings under challenge in holding assessee s duty drawback and interest subsidy to be eligible for sec. 10B. Disallowance of other income while computing the deduction u/s 10B - Held that - as rightly pointed out by the ld AR that section 10B(1) of the Act starts with the expression subject to the provisions of this section . The provisions of section 10B(4) of the Act which stipulates the computation mechanism clearly states that the entire profits of the business of the eligible undertaking should be taken into account for computing the amount eligible for section 10B of the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of duty drawback and interest subsidy for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of other income while computing the deduction under Section 10B. 3. Rectification proceedings under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) concerning gratuity provision and delayed ESI/PF contribution payments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Duty Drawback and Interest Subsidy for Deduction under Section 10B: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's duty drawback and interest subsidy as eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The CIT(A) held that the assessee's manufacturing undertaking, registered as a 100% export-oriented unit (EOU), satisfied the conditions of Section 10B. The AO had denied the deduction for duty drawback and interest subsidy, citing Supreme Court judgments in Pandian Chemicals and Liberty India, which required a direct nexus between the receipt and the industrial undertaking's operations. However, the CIT(A) relied on the ITAT Special Bench decision in Maral Overseas Ltd. vs. ACIT, which stated that Section 10B(4) provided a specific formula for computing eligible profits, which included all business income, including export incentives. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The CIT(A) also noted the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Motorola India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which included incidental incomes derived from the business of the undertaking as eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The CIT(A) concluded that since the assessee's EOU's turnover was entirely from exports, the entire business income, including duty drawback and interest subsidy, was eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The AO was directed to allow the deduction accordingly. 2. Disallowance of Other Income while Computing the Deduction under Section 10B: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 10B for other income, including rent, claims realized, suppliers' balance written back, miscellaneous income, and duty drawback. The AO had denied the deduction, arguing that these incomes were not derived from the export of articles or things. However, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on its previous rulings in the assessee's own case and the Calcutta High Court's judgment. The ITAT emphasized that Section 10B(4) mandated that the entire profits of the business of the undertaking, including other income, should be considered for computing the deduction. The ITAT noted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Liberty India and other cases were rendered in the context of Sections 80HH, 80HHC, 80IA, and 80IB, which did not have a specific computation mechanism like Section 10B(4). The ITAT concluded that the entire business income of the 100% EOU, including other income, was eligible for deduction under Section 10B, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 3. Rectification Proceedings under Section 154 read with Section 143(3): The Revenue's appeals concerning rectification proceedings under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) involved disallowance of gratuity provision and delayed ESI/PF contribution payments. The appeals suffered from a delay of 951 days, which was condoned based on the Revenue's petition and the assessee's no objection. The ITAT noted that the net tax effect involved in these appeals was less than ?20 lakh, as per CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the appeals as involving a lower tax effect than the prescribed limit. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's duty drawback and interest subsidy as eligible for deduction under Section 10B, relying on the specific computation mechanism provided in Section 10B(4). The ITAT also dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning other income and rectification proceedings due to the lower tax effect involved. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed accordingly.
|
