Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 503 - AT - Income TaxComputation of deduction 80HHF - Reduction of 90% of other income from profits of business - Duty Drawback, Sundry Balances written back, Miscellaneous Income and Compensation – Held that:- CIT(A) has admitted that all the receipts cited by the assessee have an element of turnover and can be assessed under the business head but they do not ipso facto qualify the deduction - Following the decision in ACIT vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (4) TMI 535 - ITAT MUMBAI] - the provisions of section 80HHF are similar to the provisions contained in section 80HHC subject to the difference that under section 80HHC, 90% of the sum referred to in clause(iiia) to (iiie) at section 28 has also to be excluded from the profits of the business while such amount is not required to be deducted in computing profits of business under section 80HHF - The relevant observations have already been reproduced above - Provisions of clause (iiia) to (iiie) of section 28 inter-alia include duty draw back - in absence of any express provision in section 80HHF duty draw back cannot be excluded with reference to sub-clause(A) of clause (f) of explanation to section 80HHF - all receipts of the assessee are regarding telecast of films and programmes and thus, all these receipts relate to business activity of the assessee of telecasting films and programmes - They cannot be termed to be receipts distinct from the activity of the assessee of telecasting the films and programmee - amount of Duty Drawback and receipts in the nature of operating income and amount being part of miscellaneous income relating to receipt of the assessee from Indian Film Export Association, refund of Central Excise Duty and credit note of Priya Shine do not fall within the ambit of sub-clause(A) of clause(f) of explanation to section 80HHF - These amounts are held not to be excludible from the computation of deduction under section 80HHF – Decided partly in favour of assessee. Interest earned on bank deposits – Income from other sources – Held that:- It has been the contention of the assessee that FDRs were kept as margin money for securing export payment - The fact that assessee had incurred interest expenditure on borrowed capital is also not disputed – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld that the interest earned by the assessee on FDR could not be separately assessed as income from other sources – Decided against revenue. Payment made within grace period – Held that:- Following the decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] - omission of second proviso to section 43B and the amendment of first proviso by Finance Act, 2003, bringing about uniformity in payment of tax, duty, cess and fee on one hand and contribution of employees welfare fund on the other are curative in nature and thus effective retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 1/4/1988 i.e. the date of insertion of first proviso – thus, if payments are made before due date of filing the return then disallowance cannot be made - assessee has made payments within the grace period which is much prior to due date of filing the return – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|