9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80IA on gross total income inclusive of income from other sources as per the provisions of sec. 80AB. According to the Revenue, other sources could not be included in the income eligible for deduction under sec. 80HHC and 80IA. It is an admitted position by and between the parties that the assessee received income from lease rent and interest which has been taxed, according to the AO as income from other sources. 3. The CIT(Appeals), on appeal preferred by the assessee, the present respondent herein, held that the claim for deduction under sec. 80HHC and 80IA was allowable. This aspect has aggrieved the Revenue and following question was posed for consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n submitted by learned advocate Shri Qureshi that the revenue proposes to amend the appeal memo filed in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, but as on today, the fact remains that the issue regarding claim of depreciation in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries decided by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the revenue. Looking to the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra), in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view with regard to the depreciation in the instant case and, therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, Mr. Parikh learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the question of law as raised in this case was never decided in those matters, and therefore, he requested that the question of law be decided afresh. As both the questions of law are inter connected are decided together. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. According to the learned counsel Mr. Parikh, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Plastiblends India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors., reported in [2009] 318 ITR (Bom)[FB] will have to be applied to the facts of this case. Ld. Counsel has relied on the grounds of challenge raised in this appeal as it original was and amended. 8. In co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered. The decision of CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration (P) Ltd. (supra) relied on by the assessing Officer is not applicable in the instant case as the issue as to whether depreciation is optional or not was never before the Supreme Court. The second decision of Madras High Court in the case of Dasa Prakash Bottling Co. v. CIT (supra) will also not be applicable as the Gujarat High Court,which is jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Arun Textiles 192 ITR 700 did not agree with this decision. In the case of Arun Textiles (supra), the Gujarat High Court held that there is nothing in the provisions of section 32(1) read with section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to indicate that even when no claim is made for allowing deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to withdraw depreciation allowance of Rs. 85,24,227/- not claimed by the appellant." 12. The Tribunal has upheld the well reasoned finding of CIT(Appeals) in computing and analyzing the gross business profit. The provisions of section. 80IA read with section 80HHC reads as follows: & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than a company) resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, [a deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in subsection(1B),] derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise." 13. The submission of learned counsel for respondent as is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. MANDIDEEP ENG. AND PKG.IND. P. LTD. reported in [2007] 292 ITR 1 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "The point involved in the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
