2014 (1) TMI 1243 - AT - Income Tax

Whether exclude erection and installation charges are excluded for deduction u/s 80HHC - Held that - Following assessee s own case for A.Y. 2002-03 - These amounts are to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of computing the income derived from export by virtue of the provisions of section 80HHC(3) of the Act - Decided against revenue. Whether only net interest be reduced from income for deduction u/s 80HHC - Held that - Following Lalsons Enterprises 2004 (2) TMI 294 - ITAT DELHI-E - For the purpose of applying Explanation (baa) below subsection 4B) of section 80HHC and while reducing 90 per cent of the receipt by way of interest from the profits of the business, it is only the 90 per cent of the net interest remaining after allowing a set-off of interest paid, which has a nexus with the interest received, that can be reduced and not 90 per cent of the gross interest - Decided against revenue. Whether the claim raised subsequent to filing of the return of income during the course of assessment proceedings be allowed - Held that - The assessee had not claimed expenditure of Rs.10,13,759/- due to oversight in its P&L account, but subsequently made the claim before the AO and also filed an application for rectification of mistake, after original assessment proceedings were concluded - Following CIT vs. K.N.Oil Industries 1982 (3) TMI 16 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court - if it is apparent from the record that the assessee was entitled to relief admissible under the Income Tax Act, that relief can be granted to him by an order under section 154 by rectifying the assessment even though relief under that section had not been claimed by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of erection and installation charges for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC.
2. Reduction of net interest from the income while computing deduction under Section 80HHC.
3. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Star.
4. Allowance of excess expenditure claimed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Erection and Installation Charges for the Purpose of Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC:
The Revenue contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to exclude erection and installation charges for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. The CIT(A) held that these charges should form part of the income for Section 80HHC purposes. The Tribunal, referencing a previous decision in the assessee's own case (ITA No.2056/Ahd/2005 for AY 2002-03), upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the amounts in question should be treated as part of business profits for computing income derived from export under Section 80HHC(3) of the Act. The Revenue failed to provide any new evidence or change in circumstances to counter this precedent, leading to the rejection of this ground.

2. Reduction of Net Interest from the Income While Computing Deduction Under Section 80HHC:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce only net interest from the income while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal cited its earlier ruling in the assessee's case (ITA No.2056/Ahd/2005 for AY 2002-03), which determined that interest income should be excluded from business income for Section 80HHC purposes. However, it should be the net interest after deducting the expenses incurred to earn such interest, as per the Special Bench decision in the case of Lalsons Enterprises (89 ITD 25). The Tribunal found no new arguments or evidence from the Revenue to deviate from this established decision, thus rejecting this ground.

3. Applicability of the Decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Case of Asian Star:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Asian Star (231 CTR 1). The Tribunal acknowledged that the decision in Asian Star was implicitly overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (343 ITR 89). Since the Revenue did not dispute this fact, this ground was also rejected.

4. Allowance of Excess Expenditure Claimed by the Assessee During the Course of Assessment Proceedings:
The Revenue objected to the CIT(A)'s decision to allow an excess expenditure of Rs.10,13,759/- claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, which was not included in the original return. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. K.N. Oil Industries (142 ITR 13) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Container Corp. of India Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (92 ITD 333). These decisions established that relief could be granted under Section 154 even if not claimed in the original assessment, provided the expenditure was genuine and not contested as sham or bogus. The Tribunal found no contrary evidence from the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, rejecting this ground.

Conclusion:
In both appeals (ITA No.2692/Ahd/2010 for AY 1996-97 and ITA No.2693/Ahd/2010 for AY 2006-07), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's contentions and upheld the decisions of the CIT(A), finding no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed in their entirety.

← Previous Next →