9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of manufacturing profit eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Therefore, second issue mentioned in the miscellaneous application is allowed in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2446/AHD/2007 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, CA For the Respondent : Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2004- 05, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (in short ld. CIT(A) ], in Appeal No. CIT(A)/VLS/371/06- 07, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of Tribunal, so far decision on merits is concerned. However, we observe that Tribunal has committed typographical error in quoting amount (figure), that is, Tribunal has mentioned wrong figure at Rs.11.07crores, instead of correct figure to the tune of Rs.1.107 crores, therefore, we direct the assessing officer, that in para no. 27 and 30 of the order of this Tribunal in ITA No.2446/AHD/2007 for AY.2004-05, the figure should be read as Rs.1.107 crores . 4. Second issue, for which the order of the Tribunal was recalled, reads as follows: 7. We have heard both the parties. We note that issue raised in ground no.7 has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal and there is adjudication on a different issue which was not at all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. Succinct facts of the issue under consideration are that during the financial year 2003-04, assessee has included amount the provision written back of Rs.33,97,072/- in profit eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The provision written back includes the following items: (Amount are in Rs.): a) Export commission accrued but not paid written back Rs.6,16,380/- b) Creditors Written back Rs.4,18,431/- c) Rebate received from banks of loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submission of the parties and perusing the judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we find that the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. The question as to whether provision written back is eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act was considered by various judicial forums across India. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Class India Ltd. vs ACIT, in ITA No.608/Del/2006 for AY.2001-02, held that provision written back should not be excluded from profits, therefore these are eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced below: 18. As regards provision wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Gujarat High Court in the case of Mistu Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 658 of 2009, order dated 29.06.2010, wherein it was held as follows: 9. In relation to proposed question [D], the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 80HHC in respect of recovery of bad debts, excess provisions written back, etc. On behalf of the assessee it has been claimed that recovery of bad debts and sundry balances written back are directly relatable to the business profit of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) found that writing back of provisions/liability for expenses payable was merely a reversal of liabilities created in the previous year as a result of which manufacturing profit of the previous year got reduced. Accordingly, it should also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
