2023 (5) TMI 213 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - treatment of VAT remission as not eligible for deduction u/s 80IE - HELD THAT - For CIT while invoking the provision of section 263, both the conditions that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. We find that the issue in the present case relating to allowability of claim of deduction u/s 80IE of the Act is covered by the judicial precedent referred above. Accordingly, in respect of issue raised by the ld. PCIT in respect of VAT Remission in the revisionary proceedings, no action u/s 263 of the Act is justifiable which in our considered view cannot be sustained by respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court Meghalaya Steels Ltd 2016 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT as well as Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court Meghalaya Steels Ltd 2010 (9) TMI 679 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT We, therefore, quash the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of VAT Remission for deduction under section 80IE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Treatment of VAT Remission for Deduction under Section 80IE:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing instant food items, claimed a deduction under section 80IE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was initially allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) later noted that the income included VAT Remission and other sources, which he believed did not qualify for the deduction under section 80IE. The PCIT issued a show cause notice under section 263, challenging the eligibility of VAT Remission for the deduction. The assessee argued that VAT Remission was directly linked to the manufacturing activities, relying on the ITAT Guwahati decision in Meghalaya Mineral Products vs ACIT, which supported the inclusion of VAT Remission in the deduction under section 80IE. The Tribunal, after reviewing the provisions of section 80IE and relevant case laws, including the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs Meghalaya Steels Ltd., concluded that VAT Remission has a direct nexus with the manufacturing business and is eligible for deduction under section 80IE.

Invocation of Revisionary Proceedings under Section 263:
The PCIT invoked section 263, asserting that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that for section 263 to apply, both conditions'error in the order and prejudice to revenue'must be satisfied. Given the judicial precedents affirming the eligibility of VAT Remission for deduction under section 80IE, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's order. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under section 263, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that VAT Remission is eligible for deduction under section 80IE and quashed the PCIT's revisionary order under section 263, allowing the assessee's appeal. The decision was pronounced on 27.04.2023.