9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 990 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80HHC - quantification of deduction - HELD THAT - It cannot be disputed by the Revenue that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.R.Prabhakar 2004 (5) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R.Prabhakar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore 2006 (7) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT , wherein, the Court held that the Commission is also to be considered for determining the deduction under Section 80HHC Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal AND the order passed by the CIT(A), are set aside, insofar as it pertains to the issue under consideration, namely, the interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) and restricting the relief under the said provision. Assessing Officer is directed to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorised representative of the assessee and apply the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above and re-do the assessment on the said aspect, in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Restriction of relief under Section 80HHC. 3. Validity of the assessment order and subsequent appellate orders. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) concerning the deduction of profits derived from export activities. The assessee, a partnership firm, claimed a full deduction of ?39,91,456/- under Section 80HHC, declaring Nil taxable income. The Assessing Officer modified this deduction to ?29,76,097/-. The Tribunal and CIT(A) upheld this restricted deduction. The Supreme Court, however, reversed a similar decision in P.R. Prabhakar's case, stating that commission should also be considered for determining the deduction. The High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling, acknowledged that the interpretation should include commission in the deduction calculation. 2. Restriction of Relief under Section 80HHC: The Tribunal restricted the relief under Section 80HHC based on its interpretation, which was later contested. The Supreme Court clarified that the amendment to Section 80HHC by the Finance Act (No. 2), 1991, was prospective and not retrospective. This means that the restrictive interpretation applied by the Tribunal was incorrect for the assessment year in question (1991-92). The High Court, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's order, directing a re-assessment in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation. 3. Validity of the Assessment Order and Subsequent Appellate Orders: The initial assessment order dated 31.03.1994, which restricted the deduction, was contested by the assessee through various appellate stages. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the restricted deduction. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in P.R. Prabhakar's case necessitated a re-evaluation of these orders. The High Court, in its judgment, set aside the assessment order, the CIT(A)'s order dated 29.06.1994, and the Tribunal's order dated 24.03.2003, specifically concerning the interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) and the restriction of relief. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-assessment, ensuring the application of the Supreme Court's decision. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders and remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 80HHC(3) was answered in favor of the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in P.R. Prabhakar's case. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing and to re-do the assessment in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation.
|
