Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (9) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s.41(1) of Rs. 3,06,20,848 being the difference in the sales tax loan liability and the actual payment, representing the net present value of existing liability in respect of the same made during F.Y. 2002-03 under the sales tax 1993 package scheme of incentive." 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by Special Bench of this decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Ltd Vs JCIT (42 SOT 457), even as Learned Departmental Representative dutifully relied upon the orders of the authorities below,. 5. In view of the fact that the issue in appeal is admittedly covered by Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Ltd (sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee's claim u/s. 80 HHC based on the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lakshmi Machine, , 290 ITR 667(SC and K.Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228 (SC).. Learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A). Learned counsel also submits that the decision in the case of k.Ravindranathan is on different facts and hence, it is not applicable in assessee's case. 9. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1998-99 after considering the facts in detail, has set aside the issue to the file of the AO to rework the assessee's claim under section 80 HHC based on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lakshmi Machine and K.Ravindranathan Nair (supra). Hence, this ground is disposed of with the above direction." Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case (supra), we remit the issue to the file of the AO rework the assessee's claim under section 80 HHC based on the guidelines laid down in the case of laksmi Machine and K.Ravindranathan Nair (supra). 10. With regard to second limb of the ground i.e. reducing the entire sale proceeds of DEPB licence instead of profits, learned counsel fairly agrees that the issue is covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, 328 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om export which are eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the deduction u/s. 80IB relatable to exports i.e. 5.53% of Rs. 1,80,74,609 at Rs. 9,92,600 be excluded instead of whole deduction of Rs. 1,75,11,808 allowed u/s. 80IB and directed the AO to rework out the deduction u/s. 80 HHC accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 15. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee contends that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.5541/M/05 for the assessment year 2001-02 and also for the assessment year 2003-04. It was also submitted that later on the issue was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee also distributed dividend amounting to Rs. 1,74,000. Since the dividend distributed by the assessee was higher than the dividend income, the assessee claimed deduction to the extent of Rs. 76,51,248 u/s. 80M of the I.T.Act after suo moto apportioning expenses of Rs. 50,000 towards the exempt income. The Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction u/s. 80M in view of the provisions contained in section 115-O (5) of the I.T.Act, as per the said section, no deduction under any other provisions of the Act shall be allowed to a company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section(1) of Section 115-O(5) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates