Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 522 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80HHC of the Act Profits derived from business of export - Held that - Unless the assessee is in a position to point out that the income earned is derived by the assessee from export of such goods and merchandise, such income would not qualify for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act The decision in CIT Vs. K.Ravindranathan Nair 2007 (11) TMI 10 - Supreme Court of India - every receipt is not an income and every income would not necessarily include element of export turnover - receipts constituting independent income having no nexus with exports are required to be reduced from business profit - every receipt cannot constitute sale proceeds from exports - every receipt is not income under the Income-tax Act and every income may not be attributable to the business of export - even though the assessee is an exporter, there was no necessary materials to point out as to whether the assessee's forward contracts were with reference to any particular contract or not or generally kept as an export house and not by way of speculative business the matter remitted back to the AO to find out whether forward contract were made in the course of its business of export and whether the profit earned from exchange fluctuation were with reference to any particular contract for export of goods. Claim of depreciation on temporary parking shed Held that - The expenditure incurred was apart from the extent of expenditure thus incurred - whether the parking shed is a temporary one for parking vehicle or the shed itself is temporary one is not yet cleared - other temporary shed for keeping spares - ware-house and other expenditure incurred on storage facilities there was no justifiable ground to accept the plea of the assessee that the parking shed put up by the assessee should be treated as temporary one for the purpose of granting depreciation at 100% - order set aside and the depreciation on the expenditure incurred on putting up of temporary shed for parking vehicle would be at 10% only thus, the matter remitted back to the AO. Expenditure on dies & moulds Held that - Replacement of the new dye in the place of old dye would qualify for current repairs under Section 31 of the Act - The decision in CIT Vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P.Ltd 2009 (7) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT followed - what is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act are those expenditure other than one falling for consideration under Sections 30 to 36 of the Act - when the picture tube in a television set is replaced, such repairs would come within the connotation of the phrase current repairs thus, the claim being considered as current repairs, the same would fall under Section 31 of the Act as current repairs the order of the Tribunal modified. Deduction under Entry Tax Held that - The Tribunal rightly considered the claim of the assessee for deduction of entry tax payment made by the assessee - The payment made on the entry tax demand and its adjustment against the Sales Tax assessment has nothing to do with deduction provision under the Income Tax Act on the entry tax paid - The provisions of Sales Tax Act and the Income Tax Act are on the different lines - The adjustment or the treatment given under the Sales Tax Act cannot be read in to the Income Tax Act and the only question is whether the entry tax actually paid by the assessee during the year under consideration is allowable as deduction or not - The Tribunal rightly allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of tax payment made under Entry Tax Act - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Foreign exchange gains from cancellation of forward contracts and their inclusion in export turnover for Section 80HHC benefits. 2. Depreciation rate applicable to temporary parking sheds. 3. Allowability of expenditure related to advance for R&D equipment under Section 35(1)(iv). 4. Classification of expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds as revenue expenditure. 5. Deduction of entry tax paid under Section 43B. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Foreign Exchange Gains from Cancellation of Forward Contracts: The Tribunal initially allowed the assessee's claim that foreign exchange gains from forward contracts should be included in the export turnover for Section 80HHC benefits, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. K.Ravindranathan Nair. However, the High Court noted the lack of material facts to determine whether these gains were directly related to specific export contracts or were speculative. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration to ascertain the exact nature of these gains and their eligibility under Section 80HHC. 2. Depreciation on Temporary Parking Sheds: The Tribunal had allowed 100% depreciation on the temporary parking sheds, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court emphasized that the sheds, given their substantial cost and expected lifespan of 20 years, were not temporary. It restored the Assessing Officer's decision to allow only 10% depreciation, aligning with the nature and longevity of the sheds. 3. Expenditure on R&D Equipment: The Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for expenditure on R&D equipment under Section 35(1)(iv), referencing CIT Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. The High Court agreed with this decision, confirming that the expenditure was allowable. 4. Expenditure on Replacement of Dies and Moulds: The Tribunal classified the expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds as revenue expenditure, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe Pvt. Ltd. The High Court supported this view, stating that dies and moulds are integral parts of machinery and their replacement qualifies as current repairs under Section 31, not as capital expenditure under Section 37. The High Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including CIT Vs. Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. and CIT Vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills, to support its conclusion. 5. Deduction of Entry Tax Paid: The Tribunal allowed the deduction of entry tax paid under Section 43B, despite the Revenue's argument that such tax was set off against sales tax liability. The High Court upheld this decision, clarifying that the treatment of entry tax under the Sales Tax Act does not affect its deductibility under the Income Tax Act. The High Court emphasized that the actual payment of entry tax qualifies for deduction, rejecting the Revenue's plea of double deduction. Judgment Summary: - The High Court remitted the issue of foreign exchange gains from forward contracts back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. - The High Court restored the Assessing Officer's decision to allow 10% depreciation on temporary parking sheds. - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the allowability of R&D expenditure under Section 35(1)(iv). - The High Court confirmed that the expenditure on replacement of dies and moulds should be treated as revenue expenditure under Section 31. - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of entry tax paid under Section 43B. Conclusion: - T.C.(A) No. 173 of 2009 was partly allowed, remitting the foreign exchange gains issue back to the Assessing Officer and allowing the Revenue's appeal on the depreciation rate. - T.C.(A) No. 174 of 2009 was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on R&D expenditure, replacement of dies and moulds, and entry tax deduction. No costs were awarded.
|