9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 415 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80HHC - Premium of transfer of the export license - CIT allowed partial deduction of 10% to assessee whereas Tribunal allowed full benefit - Held that - In order to qualify for benefit under Section 80HHC, the profit earned should have a nexus to the export of the goods directly merchandised - In the case of premium payment received on transferring export quotas, it does not involve any earnings of foreign exchange and does not result in profits attributable to an export activity for the purpose of Section 80HHC and no deduction under Section 80HHC can be claimed - entitlement to a quota and a premium or price for the transfer of a quota may be incidental to the export activity carried on by the assessee earlier but has no direct nexus in the sense that no export is found in the hands of the assessee in respect of subject amount - Order of the appellate tribunal is set-aside - Following decisions of ANIL DANG vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 2010 (12) TMI 944 - Karnataka High Court and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGESH KNITWEARS P.LTD. 2012 (6) TMI 65 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. 3. Interpretation of the term "derived from" in the context of export income. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The core issue revolves around whether the assessee, a private limited company and exporter, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC for the premium received from the transfer of export quotas. The assessee claimed that the consideration received for transferring the quota is akin to earnings from export activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating that the amount received did not represent income derived from export activities but was instead business income earned within the country. The Supreme Court's ruling in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STERLING FOODS (237 ITR 579 (SC)) was cited, where it was held that there must be a direct nexus between the export activity and the profits for the income to be considered as derived from export. 2. Applicability of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC: The Appellate Commissioner partially allowed the assessee's appeal by invoking Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, which mandates that 90% of certain incomes, including those listed under Section 28(iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid), and (iiie), should be excluded from the business profits for the purpose of Section 80HHC deductions. The Appellate Tribunal, however, disagreed with this application, stating that the earnings from the transfer of quotas were not covered by Explanation (baa) and should be considered under Section 28(iv) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal extended the full benefit of Section 80HHC to the assessee. 3. Interpretation of the term "derived from" in the context of export income: The term "derived from" was crucial in determining the eligibility for deduction under Section 80HHC. The learned standing counsel for the revenue argued that the income from the transfer of quotas did not have a direct nexus to export activities and was not earned by converting foreign exchange into local currency. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sterling Foods and LIBERTY INDIA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ((2009) 317 ITR 218), which emphasized that the income must have a direct nexus to export activities to qualify for deductions under Section 80HHC. Judgment Analysis: The High Court examined the arguments and precedents cited by both parties. It was noted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGESH KNITWEARS P.LTD (345 ITR 135 (Delhi)) supported the revenue's stance that premium received from transferring export quotas does not qualify for deductions under Section 80HHC as it does not directly result in earning foreign exchange. The Court also referred to its own decision in ANIL DANG vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITA 1252/2006), where it was held that profits should have a direct nexus to the export of goods to qualify for Section 80HHC benefits. The Court concluded that the assessee's income from the transfer of quotas was incidental to export activities and did not have the required direct nexus. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in reversing the Appellate Commissioner's order and extending the full benefit of Section 80HHC to the assessee. The Tribunal's reference to Section 28(iv) was deemed inappropriate as it did not automatically qualify the income as derived from export activities. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the Appellate Commissioner's order. The Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under Section 80HHC for the income received from the transfer of export quotas as it did not have a direct nexus to export activities. The question of law was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.
|
