2012 (11) TMI 663 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s. 10B of the Income-tax Act - CIT(A) granted deduction u/s 10B after excluding the additional income surrendered by the assessee during search proceedings u/s 132 Held that - Since the seized paper was connected with the business activity of the assessee i.e. exports and the AO added the additional business income in the business income of the assessee from exports and also granted deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act to the assessee, would prove that the assessee was also entitled for deduction u/s 10 B of the IT Act on additional business income also. Considering the facts and circumstances noted above in the light of the above discussions and the case laws referred to above, we are of the view the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10 B of the IT Act on pro-rata basis. - Decided in favor of assessee partly.

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of additional business income from seized documents.
3. Validity of audit report and specific working details for deduction claims.
4. Pro-rata basis for deduction claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue in both appeals was whether the additional business income should be eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee companies claimed deductions based on their export income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) denied these claims, arguing that the additional business income did not meet the criteria for such deductions. The Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessees, directing the AO to allow deductions on a pro-rata basis.

2. Treatment of Additional Business Income from Seized Documents:
The additional business income in question was derived from documents seized during a search operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act. The AO argued that the additional income was not substantiated with evidence of being derived from export activities. However, the Tribunal found that the seized documents pertained to unaccounted expenses and receipts related to the business operations, thus justifying the inclusion of this additional income for deduction purposes.

3. Validity of Audit Report and Specific Working Details for Deduction Claims:
The AO contended that the audit report in Form No. 56G did not provide specific working details for the claimed deductions. The Tribunal, however, noted that the audit report did reference the additional income and that the pro-rata claim for deduction was justified given the circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's rejection of the deduction was not supported by a thorough examination of the audit report and related documentation.

4. Pro-rata Basis for Deduction Claims:
The Tribunal directed that the deductions under Section 10B should be allowed on a pro-rata basis. This decision was based on the proportionate turnover of export income relative to total income, as stipulated under Section 10B(4) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the additional business income was indeed part of the business operations and thus eligible for proportionate deduction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to allow deductions under Section 10B on a pro-rata basis for both assessees. The appeals were partly allowed, providing relief to the assessees by recognizing the additional business income as eligible for export-related deductions.

← Previous Next →