9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Highland Produce Co. Ltd., Alleppey, for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that deduction under s. 80HHC is allowed on the profits from tea before the apportionment as per r. 8 of the IT Rules. 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and it derives income from the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14,21,723 was allowable under 80HHC on the entire profit from tea and then 40 per cent of the balance amount was to be apportioned as income liable to tax under Central Income-tax. The Department is in appeal before the Tribunal with the plea that the deduction allowed by the CIT(A) is not in order. 3. We have heard the Departmental Representative Shri Kuruvilla M. George, and the assessee's repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter VI-A of the IT Act, 1961. Hence the deduction in respect of the profits from the industry contemplated under s. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, should be applied to the profits and gains attributable to the income from the tea industry before r. 8 of the IT Rules, 1962 is applied to apportion the agricultural income chargeable to agricultural income-tax." Rule 8(1) of the IT Rules provides that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the apportionment at 40 per cent. It was stated that in the account of the deduction allowed from the profit of Rs. 6,05,494 from trading which was not allowed by the AO. We find that the CIT(A) was correct in holding that first the deduction under s. 80HHC was to be allowed and then only the apportionment as per r. 8 is to fee made towards the income liable to Central Income-tax. The provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
