2015 (1) TMI 613 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction under Section 80HHC - ITAT allowed the claim of the assessee for 10% of the expenditure relating to indirect cost for computing deduction - Held that - under section 80HHC(3)(b) one has to balance the principle of attribution with the concept of allocation . The concept of allocation is meant to reduce the incentive. However, when allocation has to be balanced with the principle of attribution , the object is to reduce the incentive and not to eliminate it. The question of law raised in this appeal is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the claim of the assessee for 10% of the expenditure relating to indirect cost for computing deduction under Section 80HHC. - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made in the quantum proceedings - Held that - As the said addition was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No.45/Ahd/2005. Since the penalty was a consequential action of the addition made, the same would not survive when the addition itself has been deleted by the Tribunal.Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of penalty imposed on the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's order allowing assessee's appeal in Tax Appeal No.58 of 2007.
2. Challenge to Tribunal's order dismissing revenue's appeal in Tax Appeal No.1670 of 2007.
3. Interpretation of Section 80HHC for computing deduction.
4. Imposition and cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

1. Tax Appeal No.58 of 2007:
The revenue challenged the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The assessee initially declared total income of Rs. 11,91,370, but the Assessing Officer determined it to be Rs. 59,56,850. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, and the Tribunal fully allowed it. The High Court considered the substantial question of law regarding the claim of 10% of expenditure for indirect cost under Section 80HHC. Referring to the decision in Hero Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and holding that the claim for 10% of indirect cost for deduction under Section 80HHC was valid.

2. Tax Appeal No.1670 of 2007:
In this appeal, the revenue challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal against the cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed based on an addition made in the quantum proceedings, which was later deleted by the Tribunal. The High Court held that since the addition was deleted, the penalty could not stand. Citing the consequential nature of the penalty, the Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the assessee. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the principle of attribution with the concept of allocation under Section 80HHC and clarified the application of the law in both cases. The judgments provide a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedent, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome in both matters.