Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 927 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80HHC(4C) - ITAT held insurance claim was not in the nature of 'other receipts' and 90% of such receipts could not be reduced from 'profit of business' under clause (baa) of Explanation below Section 80 HHC (4C) - Held that:- The words “any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits” used in the explanation have to be read “edjusdem generis” to the preceding words, i.e., “brokerage”, “commission”, “rent”, “charges”. The words “similar nature” used before the words “any other receipt” refers to and alludes to the principle of “edjusdem generis” and in fact leaves no ambiguity as to legislative intent that only such receipts would fall within the meaning of sub-clause (1) of the explanation as would partake the nature of the words preceding the expression “receipts of a similar nature”. A claim for insurance arises on account of a special loss to an assessee and, therefore, does not require any degree of legal acumen or scholarship to infer that such receipt cannot be included within sub-clause (1) of the aforementioned explanation. We draw support for a conclusion from a judgment of this Court in CIT Vs. Khemka Containers Private Ltd. (2004 (8) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court). In view of what we have discussed above, we answer the first question accordingly and hold that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have not committed any error of law while holding against the revenue.
|