9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the said addition." 3. The assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of making abrasives. It also deals in ceramic and plastics. In the preceding assessment years, the Assesseee had availed of the benefits of deferral of sales tax offered by the Government of Maharashtra as an incentive for rapid industrialization of the developing regions of the State of Maharashtra. The Sales tax Incentive Scheme was availed by the Assesseee in respect of its plant at Butibori Industrial Area at Nagpur (Butibori Plant). In accordance with the Sales tax Incentive Scheme, 1993, the sales tax collected in respect of the Butibori Plant was credited separately to Sales tax Account. Set-off, if any, available on the purchases was debited to this account with corresponding credit to purchases. The net Sales tax deferral was then transferred to the Deferred Sales tax liability account grouped under "Unsecured Loan" in the Balance Sheet of the Assesseee. The sales tax, payment of which has been deferred under the Incentive scheme, is deemed to have been paid for the purpose of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). There is no dispute that material facts of the case before us are the same as were the facts before the Special Bench in Sulzer's case. Learned Departmental Representative, however, makes elaborate submission in support of his stand that the Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Limited (supra) calls for a reconsideration and that it is not correct. He submits that even though the issue is covered by the Special Bench decision, we must take independent view of the matter since the Special Bench decision is, what he terms as, per incurium. Broadly, his stand is that what is to be taxed under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession' and if a benefit like part remission of the deferred sales tax liability is not taxable as a profit of the business, it can be taxed as gains of business. It is then pointed out that the circular relied upon by the Special Bench was in the context of Section 43B and it cannot be construed to be of application in all the matters relating to the Income Tax Act. It is also pointed out that sales tax authorities are not in the business of granting loans and the nature of concession received from the sales tax authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (ii) The assessee must have subsequently (i) obtained any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or (ii) obtained any benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof . In case either of these events happen, the deeming provision enacted in closing part of sub-section (1) comes into play. (iii) The amount obtained by the assessee or the value of benefit accruing to him is deemed to be profit and gain of the business or profession and it becomes chargeable to income-tax as an income of that previous year. [Para 70] Further, on a plain reading of section 41(1), it is also clear that the provisions contained in section 41(1) do not make any distinction between any contractual trading liability or any statutory trading liability. Even if any statutory liability is remitted or ceased of, or any amount, whether in cash or in any other manner, has been obtained in respect of the expenditure incurred by way of statutory liability, the same would be deemed to be the profit and gain of the business of the assessee and would, accordingly, be chargeable to income-tax as the income of that year in which such benefit or amount is obtained. [Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Net Present Value (NPV) of deferred taxes under the package scheme of incentives, the State Government by Notification No. STR-12.02/CR-102/taxation-1, dated 16- 11-2002, introduced rule 31D in the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (BST Rules) laying down the procedure for determination of such NPV. The procedure for determination of NPV of the amount of deferred taxes having been published, the Deferral Units may exercise the option under 4th proviso to sub-section (4) of section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 of pre-maturely repaying at NPV, the amount of deferred taxes. Rule 31D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules has been provided with a table and the notes below it for determination of NPV. For example, the payment of BST Rs. 27,903 and CST Rs. 70,171 due on 1-5-2003 was deposited on 30-12-2002, i.e., four months before the due date, the discounted percentage of deferred tax to be paid as NPV was prescribed in the said table at 96.4955 per cent and, accordingly, the NPV amount of BST and CST was worked out at Rs. 26,925 and Rs. 67,712, respectively, as per certificate dated 27-12-2002 and the same was paid on 30-12-2002 as per the certificate dated 25-8-2003. This amount was pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfilled in the facts of the case. [Para 104] The other requirement of section 41(1) is that the assessee must have subsequently: (i) obtained any amount in respect of such loss and expenditure, or (ii) obtained any benefit in respect of such a trading liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof . In the instant case, the sales tax collected by the assessee during the years 1989- 90 to 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 752.01 lakhs was treated by the State Government as a loan liability payable after 12 years in six annual/equal instalments. Subsequently, pursuant to the amendment made to the fourth proviso to section 38(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 which provides that where an entitlement certificate has been granted to the eligible unit for availing of the incentives by way of deferment of sales tax, etc., such eligible unit may, in respect of the periods during which the said certificate is valid, at its option, prematurely pay in place of the amount of tax deferred by it an amount equal to the net present value of the deferred tax as may be prescribed and on making such payments, in the public interest, the deferred tax shall be deemed to have been paid. In the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its NPV of future sum, then in those circumstances, merely because the assessee had passed necessary entries in its books of account, it could not be held that there was any cessation or remission of liability. [Para 106] The assessee was liable to pay sales tax amounts collected from 1-11-1989 to 31-10-1996, payments of which were deferred under the scheme, and the amounts were payable after twelve years in six equal annual instalments commencing from 1-5-2003, which meant that the liability was payable in future. Later on, the State Government came out with a scheme by which it was provided that if some dealers opted, then they could pay the future liability at a discounted value or what one may call net present value immediately. Thus, in this situation, it could not be construed as remission of liability, because the State Government had not waived of any of the liability as given in the illustrations. Had the State Government accepted lesser amount after twelve years or reduced such instalments, then it could have been a case of remission or cessation. However, in the instant case the State Government had chosen to receive the money immediately which was receivable from 1-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to the assessee it did not incur any expenses in earning dividend income and, therefore, the entire dividend income should be allowed as deduction under section 80M of the Act while computing total income. The AO was however of the view that the assessee had large Corporate Office/Head Office and incurred indirect expenses. He was of the view that the investment portfolio which yielded dividend income had to be monitored and supervised. He was, therefore, of the view that the claim of the assessee that no expenses were incurred to earn dividend income cannot be accepted. The AO estimated 10% of the gross dividend as indirect expenses attributable to the earning of the dividend income and accordingly reduced a sum of Rs. 3,06,643/- while allowing deduction under section 80 M of the Act. 7. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance from 10% to 5%. The CIT(A) erroneously referred to the provisions of section 14A of the Act. It has to be mentioned here that in A.Y 2003-04 dividend income was taxable and, therefore, the provisions of section 14A could not be applied to make disallowance of expenses incurred in earning dividend income. Aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e whereas, deduction under section SOM is allowable on net dividend arrived at after taking into account actual expenditure incurred for the purposes of earning such dividend unless the facts of a particular case warrant otherwise. The Special Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation vs. DCIT 102 ITD 1 (Chd) (SB) has also taken the view that for the purpose of Section 80M only actual expenditure incurred has to be taken into consideration and there was no question of taking expenditure on estimate or presumption basis. Submission of learned counsel for the assessee based on the aforesaid decision supports the plea of the assessee that adhoc estimation of expenses for earning dividend income as made by the revenue authorities was not correct." 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that provisions of section 14A of the Act, could not be applied when the dividend income was exempt and in this regard referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kings Export, 318 ITR 100 (PandH). He referred to the provisions of section 14A of the Act and submitted that only expenditure inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under S. 80M on the gross dividend before deduction of the proportionate management expenses?" The Hon'ble Bombay High Court made the following observation. "In our view, the question as framed does not really arise out of the Tribunal's " order since the only question which was agitated before the Tribunal was whether the deduction under s. 80M of the Act was to be computed with reference to the gross dividend income without deducting therefrom the proportionate management expenses and the Tribunal, relying on the decision of this Court in Sahu Brothers (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. (?) and in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), held that the relief under s. 80M was to be computed with reference to the gross dividend income. It appears clear that the aforesaid question seems to be finally concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (1966) 59 ITR 763 as also the decision in CIT vs. Industrial Investment Trust Co. Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 436 (Bom)" The ld. Counsel for the assessee thus submitted that in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors(Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was as to whether deduction under section 80M of the Act had to be allowed on the gross dividend or net dividend. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that deduction under section 80M is to be calculated with reference to the net dividend i.e. cross dividend (-) expenses incurred in earning the dividend income. The question as sought to be raised by the revenue before the Hon'ble High Court was modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as can be seen from the underlined portion of the judgment referred to above and the question was as to whether deduction u/s.80-M was to be allowed on net dividend or gross dividend. It is clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court that the question whether the adhoc deduction of expenses can be made from the gross dividend while deduction under section 80M of the Act was never an issue either in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. or in the case United General Trust Ltd. (supra). We are, therefore, of the view that the proposition canvassed by the DR cannot be accepted. As far as the decision of the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on income tax refund 1,00,52,306/- 1,19,13,816/- Less: Interest income shown as income From other sources 30,25,866/- 88,87,950/- Service charges 2,22,82,736/- Pre payment of sales tax 2,32,48,277/- Scrap sales 1,90,60,008/- Insurance claim received 1,62,246/- Brokerage on investments (reduced for (baa) purpose) 3,99,241/- Compensation from guarantees 11,11,900/- Royalty 71,080/- DVC lining charges 30,000/- Penalty recovered for returned cheques 4,42,000/- Sales tax refund 27,13,822/- Others 13,270/- 8,13,90,689/- Less: Already allocated Agency commission 45,10,200/- Brokerage on investments 3,99,241/- 40,09,491/- 3,99,241/- 49,09,491/- 7,64,81,198/- 14. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) granted relief in respect of some of the items listed above by treating them as profits and gains of business or profession. In respect the relief granted by the CIT(A) the revenue has raised Ground No.1 before the Tribunal. Therefore, Ground No.1 raised by the revenue has to be read as one c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once the Parliament has so legislated it cannot be said that 90% gross interest received by the assessee has to be reduced from the profits and gains of business for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC and not the net interest. In CIT vs. Ravindranathan Nair (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court equated processing charges derived by the assessee by processing cashew nuts for other exporters was not income of the nature referred to in the proviso to Explanation -baa of section 80 HHC of the Act and cannot be said to be profit derived from the business of export. 17. After considering the rival submissions we are of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Suprem Court in the case of Ravindranathan Nair was rendered on the theory of independent income unconnected with export activity. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asia Star Company Ltd. Followed this theory. In the case of the assessee we are dealing with interest income on account of delayed payment by customers. Such interest income would assume the same character as that of the monies payable for the sale of goods by the assessee. Therefore, such interest income cannot be said to be an inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs. 30,000/- are operational receipts which are not covered by explanation baa." 23. This Tribunal however has in assessee's own case taken a contrary view as can be seen at para 38 of the order of the Tribunal extracted above for A.Y 2004-05. As far as sale of scrap, service charges and refund of sales tax are concerned this Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.434/M/09 and 406/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 was pleased to consider the issue and held as follows: "33. In ground no. 3, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievances: 3(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the income from agency commission, service charges, scrap sales and sales tax as a part of business profit for the purpose of working out deduction under section 80 HHC. 3(b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to adjust the interest receipts against interest paid and consider the net amount as other income for the purpose of working out deduction under section 80 HHC. 34. As far as ground no. 3 (b) is concerned, learned representatives ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cross objection. 39. As regards exclusion of scarp sales and sales tax refund, learned representatives agree that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by decisions of the coordinate benches in the cases of Kodak India Pvt Ltd (8923/Mum/04) and Diamond Dyechem Ltd (ITA 3342/Mum/06), copies of which were placed before us. Learned Departmental Representative, however, dutifully relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer. Consistent with the stand taken by the coordinate benches, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter." 24. As can be seen from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the grievance projected by the revenue in Ground No.1 of its appeal has to be accepted. It can also be seen from the aforesaid order that the Tribunal has allowed the alternate plea of netting. As we have already seen Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Star Ltd.(supra) has taken a view that netting should not be allowed. The question of law before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Star Ltd. (supra) was "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia to the extent of the profits specified in subsection (1B) of the provision. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC provides that where the exported goods are manufactured by the assessee, the deduction under sub-section (1) would be in accordance with the formula stated therein. The formula is that the profits derived from such export shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such goods bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. Explanation (baa) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991. Under Explanation (baa), the expression "profits of the business" means the profits of the business as computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" as reduced by ninety per cent. of (a) any sums referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of section 28; or (b)any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits. The profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situated outside India have also to be reduced. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the true intent of a legislative provision. Hence for the purpose of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC the gross interest on fixed deposits in the bank received by the assessee should be considered for the purposes of working out the deduction under section 80HHC and not the net interest." The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal while it decided the case for A.Y 2004- 05. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, We, are of the view that the grievance of the assessee as projected in the Cross Objection cannot be accepted. We allow Ground No.1 raised by the revenue to the extent that it relates to insurance claim, service charges, DVC charges and professional service charges. 25. As far as Sales Tax refund which is one of the items of incomes referred in Ground No.3(f) of the Assessee, is concerned the Tribunal in assessee's own case as we have already seen has allowed the claim of the assessee. The ld. D.R however, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd., 323 ITR 429 (bom), wherein the Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edemption due to the assessee's strong credit record and ability to serve the liability. After holding several meetings with Birla MF from time to time, it was decided to prepay the debentures with a prepayment premium of Rs. 65,80,000/-. 29. The prepayment premium of Rs. 65,80,000/- was claimed as deduction as revenue expenditure, According to the assessee the expenditure was neither incurred for the initiation of a business, nor for extension of a business, nor for a substantial replacement of equipment. It has not resulted in an advantage for the enduring benefit to the business. It merely reduced the revenue expenditure for the financial year 2002-03 to 2004-05. It has neither brought into existence an asset nor an advantage for the enduring benefit to the business. By prepaying the debenture, the assessee increased its taxable income for the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 30. The AO rejected the plea of the Assessee. He held that premium has been paid for discharge of a liability on capital account because debenture was in the nature of loan. Since the payment was for discharge of capital liability, the same has to be treated as capital expenditure. On appeal by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the lessors any compensation and construct a new building thereon to suit the purpose of their business as per the plan approved by the lessors. Under clause 2 of the lease deed, the lessee was required to pay a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month for the first fifteen years, Rs. 1,500 per month for the next ten years, Rs. 1,650 per month for the next ten years and Rs. 2,000 per month for the remaining years. The lease deed further provided that the new construction shall, right from the commencement of the work, be the property of the lessors; and upon completion of the work of construction the lessee would have only the right to be a tenant for a period of 39 years under the existing lease, subject to the payment of rent and observation of other terms and conditions of the lease. The lessee would not be entitled under any circumstances to any compensation whatsoever on account of its putting up the new construction in place of the old. Acting under the lease agreement, the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 1,62,835 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 50,937 during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said land. The assessee claimed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the rival submissions. The nature of expenditure incurred in connection with borrowings on debentures has been explained by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. (supra) as follows: "A share is clearly distinct and different from a debenture. It is wellsettled that the taking of a loan does not lead to acquisition of any capital asset or any advantage of an enduring nature. The loan is a liability and cannot be considered as an advantage irrespective of the purposes for which the loan is utilized, namely, whether for acquisition of a capital asset or for meeting revenue disbursements. The expenditure incurred on the loan would be an allowable revenue expenditure. The revenue expenditure should be allowed in the year in which it is incurred. In a case where the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting the deduction should be allowed for the entire revenue expenditure in the year in which such liability is incurred although the payment is made in later years." The Hon'ble Court while coming to the above conclusion referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company over the entire period. The liability should, therefore, be spread over the period of the debentures." 35. In the present case, we are concerned with a case where debentures were redeemed much prior to the period for which they were issued. In other words, the contractual terms of issue of the debentures were not fulfilled and there was a novation of contract between the Assessee and the debenture holders. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the year in which the expenditure in the form of premium on premature redemption of debentures should be allowed. We order accordingly. Gr.No.4 raised by the Assessee is allowed. 36. Gr.No.5 raised by the Assessee reads as follows: "5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,66,972/- u/s. 43B in respect of Company's contribution to Provident Fund. The Appellant submits that the disallowance be deleted." 37. In its Return of Income, the Assessee added back to Its Income an amount of Rs. 4,00,920/- on account of delay in depositing the Company's contribution to Provident Fund and Labour Welfare Fund. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee vide Its lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt made on or before the due date for filing return of income has to be allowed as deduction as per the first proviso to Sec.43B of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision, we direct that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) should be delelted. Gr.No.5 raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed. ITA No.5512/Mum/07: Revenue's appeal: 41. Gr.No.1 raised by the Revenue has already been decided while deciding Gr.No.3 of the Assessee's appeal. For the reasons stated therein, the ground raised by the Revenue is partly allowed. 42. Gr.No.2 raised by the Revenue reads as follows: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,000/- in respect of commission paid." 40. During the previous year the Assessee paid commission of Rs. 3,18,000/- to Saint Gobain Abrasives (Singapore) (SGA Singapore) its Associated Enterprise(AE). In terms of Sec.92 of the Act, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). In AY 02-03 also in respect of identical payment of commission to an AE reference was made to TPO. The TPO was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of 10%, totalling Rs. 18.35 lakhs. j) in certain export transactions, the asessee has made higher payment of commission to outside parties at the rate of 12.5%, the party-wise details of commission paid was also furnished. 42. The Assessee also brought to the notice of the CIT(A), that an identical disallowance was made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the immediately preceding assessment year 2002-2003 and the CIT(A)-I had called for a remand report from the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer in his remand report fairly conceded that he did not find any rationale for drawing an adverse Inference against export commission payments made by the Assessee to its associated enterprises. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in his appellate order for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 dated 23d March, 2007 has directed that the disallowance in respect of commission be deleted. 43. The Assessee submitted that disallowance identical to the one made In the immediately preceding assessment year has been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the current assessment year. The Assessee submitted that Transfer Pricing Officer has merely followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TPO has not drawn any adverse inference and has accepted international transaction as at ALP. The main reason for paying 12% commission as against the policy of paying commission at 10% to group companies has been explained by the Assessee as owing to one of its key employee Parag Kunte staying with the AE in Singapore and the fact that the AE bears all his salary. The strategy was to increase sales in Far East region by having Assessee's own employee. This explanation justifies payment of higher commission then the policy of paying 10% to group companies. Apart from the above, there are also instances where the Assessee has itself received more than 10% commission and had paid more than 12% commission to non AEs. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any intereference. Consequently, Gr.No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 47. Gr.No.3 raised by the Revenue in its appeal reads as follows: "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s. 80 HHC without making the deduction u/s. 80IB of Rs. 42,95,724/- while computing the ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve sections and it is only at the stage of allowing deduction under section 80-IA(1) and also under other provisions under heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A, the provisions of section 80-IA(9) comes into operation. While accepting the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Revenue, it appears that the Delhi High Court failed to consider the important argument of the revenue noted in para 38 of its judgment. Moreover, without rejecting the argument of the revenue that section 80-IA(9) applies at the stage of allowing the deduction and not at the stage of computing the deduction, the Delhi High Court could not have held that section 80-IA(9) seeks to disturb the method of computing the deduction provided under other provisions under heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A of the Act. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to concur with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Exports (supra). For the same reason, we find it difficult to subscribe to the views expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Olam Exports (India) Ltd. (supra). 39. In the result, we hold that section 80-IA(9) does not affect the computability of deduction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
