9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 317 - HC - Income Tax100% EOU - deduction under section 80HHC - assessee has two units - assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC in respect of the Bangalore unit - Assessing Officer aggregated the profit in respect of the two units and computed the relief under section 80HHC in respect of the net income - assessee contending that when the profits from the export unit at Bangalore was identifiable, the assessee would be entitled to 100 per cent. deduction for the said profits Held that - each of the unit had maintained their accounts independently and there was no inter- dependency or interlacing of funds to treat them as one consolidated unit, income earned from the export goods from the Bangalore unit merited to be considered for 100 per cent. relief, as one falling under section 80HHC(3)(a) of the Act, so long as the export details of the unit engaged in exports are separately maintained, the assessee could not be denied of the benefit in respect of section 80HHC with reference to the export unit, decision in favour of the assessee, tax case appeal is allowed L. M. Chhabda and Sons (1967 (3) TMI 10 - SUPREME CourtSUPREME Court - Income Tax)
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80HHC for a 100% export-oriented unit. 2. Computation of gross total income for the purpose of section 80HHC. 3. Interdependency and interlacing of funds between different units. 4. Applicability of precedents and legal principles to the assessee's case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80HHC for a 100% Export-Oriented Unit: The assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC for its Bangalore unit, a 100% export-oriented unit, for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98. The Assessing Officer aggregated the profits of both the Bangalore unit and the Ramnagaram unit, which catered to both domestic and export markets, and computed the relief under section 80HHC based on the net income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this approach, rejecting the assessee's claim for separate consideration of the Bangalore unit's profits for 100% deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal also held that the relief under section 80HHC is controlled by section 80AB and must consider the aggregate income of all units. 2. Computation of Gross Total Income for the Purpose of Section 80HHC: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC), which held that the computation of gross total income must include both profits and losses from all units. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not ignore the loss incurred in one unit and that the relief under section 80HHC must follow the same method as the computation of gross total income. The assessee argued that both units were profit-making and that the gross total income was positive, thus entitling them to the deduction. 3. Interdependency and Interlacing of Funds Between Different Units: The assessee maintained that the Bangalore and Ramnagaram units were independent, with separate workforces, books of account, and bank accounts, and no interdependency. The assessee cited several precedents, including CIT v. Macmillan India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 67 (Mad) and CIT v. Rathore Brothers [2002] 254 ITR 656 (Mad), to support the claim that separate accounts for export and domestic businesses warranted full relief for the export-oriented unit. 4. Applicability of Precedents and Legal Principles to the Assessee's Case: The High Court reviewed the precedents cited by the assessee and found that the consistent view was that independent units with separate accounts and no intermingling of funds were entitled to full relief under section 80HHC. The court noted that the decisions in CIT v. Suresh B. Mehta [2007] 291 ITR 462 (Mad) and CIT v. M. Gani and Co. [2008] 301 ITR 381 (Mad) supported the assessee's claim. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in L. M. Chhabda and Sons v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 638 (SC), which held that different business ventures at different places could be treated as separate businesses if there was no interlacing of funds. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the assessee's Bangalore unit, being a 100% export-oriented unit with separate accounts and no interdependency with the Ramnagaram unit, was entitled to the deduction under section 80HHC. The court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the assessee's claim for 100% deduction for the Bangalore unit was justified. The court emphasized that section 80HHC should be interpreted beneficially, considering the independent nature of the export-oriented unit. The tax case appeal was allowed, and the connected TCMPS were closed.
|
