Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2486 - HC - Income TaxDeduction under Section 80-IC - Held that:- For the preceding AY 2008-09 also the reduction attributable to the brand had been restricted to 10% by the AO and had been deleted by the ITAT. In the absence of any distinguishing feature having been brought out by the Revenue, the ITAT held that no deduction could be made from the eligible profits on account of the 'brand'. Whether the income generating activity was only at the works units at Haridwar and not at the head office or branch offices? - Held that:- Learned counsel for the Assessee placed before the Court the profit and loss account for the Assessee as a whole for the years ending 31st March 2008 and 31st March 2009. He has also placed the details of the schedule of fixed assets of the head office and the works at Haridwar as well as statement of expenses and salaries and wages statement of the branches. As far as the head office is concerned, the net block as on 31st March 2008 was ₹ 13,22,101.14 whereas the net block for the works at Haridwar was ₹ 1,26,80,393.35. The corresponding figures for the year ending 31s March 2009 were ₹ 43,62,243.40 and ₹ 1,20,87,372.35. As regards the branch offices at Bangalore, Mumbai and Kolkatta, the total expenditure figures for the year ending 31st March 2009 were ₹ 2,86,690; ₹ 5,98,981 and ₹ 5,12,949 respectively which even in the aggregate was insignificant in comparison with the expenses of the entire company which was ₹ 9,08,34,838.18 for the same period. Likewise the expenses towards salaries and wages of the branches constitutes a small percentage of the total expenditure of the Assessee on that head. These figures bear out the contention of the Assessee that the income generating activity was only at the works units at Haridwar and not at the head office or branch offices. Therefore, on facts the Court is unable to find any perversity vitiating the impugned order of the ITAT.
|