1998 (9) TMI 135 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of sales-tax and excise duty in the computation of total turnover for deductions u/s 80HHC.
2. Inclusion of Kherthala contract receipts in the total turnover for rebate u/s 80HHC.
3. Deduction of foreign exchange rate difference in export turnover and total turnover.
4. Exclusion of dividend income for deduction u/s 80HHC.
5. Depreciation rate on weigh-bridge foundation and structure.
6. Disallowance of expenses u/s 37(4) for guest house facilities at the mining site.

Summary:

1. Inclusion of Sales-Tax and Excise Duty in Total Turnover for Deductions u/s 80HHC:
The assessee contested the inclusion of sales-tax and excise duty in the total turnover for deductions u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal referenced the Calcutta Bench decision in Chloride India Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which held that sales-tax and excise duty should not be included in the total turnover for computing deductions u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal emphasized that the numerator and denominator in the formula should be consistent to maintain uniformity and harmony, aligning with the legislative intent. The Tribunal concluded that sales-tax, octroi, and excise duty should not form part of the "total turnover" for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC, supporting the view with decisions from Chloride India, Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd., and Avon Cycles Ltd.

2. Inclusion of Kherthala Contract Receipts in Total Turnover for Rebate u/s 80HHC:
The assessee argued that Kherthala contract receipts should not be included in the total turnover for computing deductions u/s 80HHC, as it was a separate activity. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had consistently engaged in contract business and included profits from it. Therefore, the receipts from both businesses should be considered in the total turnover.

3. Deduction of Foreign Exchange Rate Difference in Export Turnover and Total Turnover:
The assessee claimed a loss due to the foreign exchange rate difference, which was not accepted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the loss was notional and not real. The methodology adopted by the assessee for claiming the loss was deemed unreasonable and unjustified, and the Tribunal declined to interfere.

4. Exclusion of Dividend Income for Deduction u/s 80HHC:
The assessee argued that dividend income should be included in the business income for calculating deductions u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal, referencing s. 56 of the IT Act, noted that dividend income is assessable under "Income from other sources." Since the assessee had treated the dividend income under this head in its audited accounts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude it from business income for deductions u/s 80HHC.

5. Depreciation Rate on Weigh-Bridge Foundation and Structure:
The assessee contended that the entire cost of the weigh-bridge, including the foundation and structure, should be depreciated at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, which treated the building and weigh-bridge as separate entities, allowing depreciation on the foundation and structure at the rate applicable to buildings.

6. Disallowance of Expenses u/s 37(4) for Guest House Facilities at the Mining Site:
The assessee argued that the structure at the mining site was not a guest house but provided common facilities for staff and workers. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on the assets at the guest house, including the building and furniture, but disallowed running expenses under s. 37(4). The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Mangal Chand Tubes (P) Ltd. vs. CIT.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions provided for each ground of appeal.