9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 378 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10B - assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation - Show cause notice stating that why brought forward unabsorbed depreciation may not be first allowed before calculating the deduction u/s. 10B - whether the profit of eligible undertaking for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 10A (which is analogous to section 10B) at the source itself or after deduction of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation? - HELD THAT - As decided in YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. 2011 (8) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT it is seen that the Hon. High Court has answered the question as to whether the profit of eligible undertaking for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 10A of the Act (which is analogous to section 10B) at the source itself or after deduction of unabsorbed brought forward depreciation, in favour of the assessee. The Hon. Court while upholding the contention of the assessee that deduction u/s 1OA was to be allowed at the source itself. - Decided against revenue Addition of demerger expenses - HELD THAT - We remit the cross objection of the assessee back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding it afresh after making proper verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the contention of the assessee that the demerger expenses were already considered in the computation of income and shall give credit thereof, if it is found so.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that all units of the assessee company are not operating in isolation. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not noting that the assessee maintains single books of accounts for all its units. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact raised through Remand Report about the timing of additional evidence submission. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)’s stand on the non-requirement of independent books of account under section 10B is correct. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation contrary to section 32. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the claim under section 10B is a deduction and not an exemption. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of demerger expenses while computing profits. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Separate Operation of Units The Revenue contended that all units of the assessee company function as branches of the same entity rather than independent units. The Ld. CIT(A), however, found that the units are independent based on evidence such as separate STPI approvals, export licenses, and distinct locations. The units have separate fixed assets and operations, and although separate books were not maintained traditionally, transactions were identifiable through ERP software. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the units should be treated as separate for the purpose of section 10B deduction. Issue 2: Single Books of Accounts The Revenue argued that the assessee maintained single books of accounts for all units, which should disqualify them from claiming separate deductions under section 10B. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation that each unit’s transactions were separately coded in the ERP system, making them identifiable as if separate books were maintained. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents that did not mandate separate books for claiming deductions under sections 10A/10B. Issue 3: Timing of Additional Evidence The Revenue objected to the admission of additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, claiming that the assessee had ample opportunity to present it earlier. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, noting that specific opportunities to clarify the independence of units were not provided during the assessment. The evidence was deemed crucial for a fair adjudication and was admitted under Rule 46A. Issue 4: Requirement of Independent Books The Revenue asserted that separate books of accounts are required under section 10B, as indicated by Form 56G. The Ld. CIT(A) disagreed, citing judicial precedents that did not require separate books for claiming deductions under section 10B. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the ERP system’s separate coding sufficed for maintaining identifiable records of each unit’s transactions. Issue 5: Depreciation Allowance The Revenue argued that the assessee claimed depreciation contrary to section 32, affecting the computation of profits for deduction under section 10B. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the unabsorbed depreciation pertained to non-eligible units and should not affect the computation of eligible unit profits. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on judicial pronouncements that supported the computation of eligible unit profits without adjusting for unabsorbed depreciation from non-eligible units. Issue 6: Nature of Section 10B Deduction The Revenue contended that section 10B provides for a deduction from total income, not an exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with judicial interpretations that section 10B deductions should be made at the source of eligible unit profits before computing the gross total income. The Ld. CIT(A) cited the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Yokogawa India Ltd., which supported this interpretation. Issue 7: Addition of Demerger Expenses The assessee contested the addition of demerger expenses, claiming they were already considered in the computation of income. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification, directing that credit should be given if the expenses were indeed already accounted for. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)’s findings on most issues, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The Tribunal remitted the issue of demerger expenses back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross objection of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
