1991 (9) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of deduction u/s 80-O of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of repair and renovation expenses.
3. Refusal to allow investment allowance on computer installation.
4. Deduction of a sum remitted from Malaysia to Japan.

Summary:

1. Computation of Deduction u/s 80-O:
The main issue in the cross-appeals was the computation of deduction u/s 80-O of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee, a consultancy company, claimed deduction on foreign exchange brought into India. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the deduction after adjusting expenses as per s. 80AB. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the facts regarding the sum of Rs. 3,79,458 remitted from Malaysia to Japan. The Tribunal held that s. 80-O does not require deduction of expenses incurred in India and directed the AO to recompute the deduction without considering such expenses.

2. Disallowance of Repair and Renovation Expenses:
The AO disallowed repair and renovation expenses amounting to Rs. 4,08,748, considering them as capital in nature. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to lack of details. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to reconsider the details and pass an appropriate order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3. Refusal to Allow Investment Allowance on Computer Installation:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision to disallow investment allowance on a computer, stating it did not qualify as an industrial undertaking u/s 32A. The Tribunal noted the lack of clarity on the computer's purpose and functioning and set aside the order, directing the lower authorities to re-examine the matter.

4. Deduction of Sum Remitted from Malaysia to Japan:
The Tribunal agreed that the deduction of Rs. 3,79,458 remitted from Malaysia to Japan should be examined with reference to the definition of "convertible foreign exchange" provided by the Explanation to s. 80N. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were partly allowed, with directions for fresh consideration and recomputation by the AO on the specified issues.