9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-B considered a cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 1984-85. The main issue revolved around the claim made under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had exported granite and claimed a deduction under this section, which was denied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this decision based on a previous case involving the same assessee. The department appealed against the deletion of disallowances, while the assessee filed a cross objection against the confirmed part of the claim. The assessee argued that they were entitled to the deduction as they excavated and exported granites after cutting them into dimensional blocks and polishing them. They cited relevant legal precedents to support their claim. On the other hand, the department contended that since the assessee's polishing unit was closed during the assessment period, the exported granite might not have been in the required form for the deduction. The departmental authorities justified the disallowance of the claim based on these grounds. The Tribunal examined section 80RRC of the Act, which deals with deductions for export business profits. It referred to circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding the eligibility for deductions related to granite exports. Legal decisions were cited to support the position that certain processes applied to granite could make it eligible for the deduction under section 80RRC. The Tribunal found that crucial details about the nature and quality of the exported granite and whether it was cut and polished were not available in the records. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration in line with the legal principles discussed. Ultimately, the cross objection of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the issue required further examination by the Assessing Officer considering the legal interpretations and factual aspects discussed during the proceedings.
|
