Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHIDeduction u/s 10B - Non consideration of foreign exchange difference as part of export turnover and total turnover - Held that:- Export proceeds simply on the ground that the rate has increased subsequent to sale but prior to realization. Eventually it has been held that the foreign exchange fluctuation gain is part of export turnover for purposes of section 80HHC of the Act. Since the connotation of ‘export turnover’ under section 10B is no different from that u/ss 10A or 80HHC of the Act, the meaning ascribed to export turnover will apply with full vigour in the context of section 10B as well. We, therefore, hold that such foreign exchange fluctuation difference has to be considered as part of ‘export turnover’. As the instant foreign exchange fluctuation difference forms part of the export turnover, the total turnover, in the denominator will also include the effect of foreign exchange fluctuation difference. We, therefore, sum up by holding that the amount of foreign exchange fluctuation difference should be included in the ‘export turnover’ and ‘total turnover’ and it should be excluded from the ‘domestic turnover’ as was done by the AO. - Decided against assessee. Treatment of scrap sale as domestic sale while computing deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- This issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries (2014 (5) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT) in which it has been held that the sale of scrap is not includible in the ‘total turnover.’ As the assessee in question is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of fasteners, the amount of sale of scrap cannot be included in the ‘total turnover’ or ‘domestic turnover’. Rather, it would go to reduce the cost of production. -- Decided against revenue. Treatment of interest income as ineligible for deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- Interest income having close nexus with the business activity of the assessee is assessable as income from business and, hence, eligible for the benefit u/s 10A and section 10B. Thus we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s10B of the Act in respect of the interest income earned on FDRs made for the purposes of keeping margin money or for availing any other credit facility from banks. The impugned order on the issue of deduction u/s 10B is set aside and the matter is sent back to the AO for computing deduction u/s 10B afresh in conformity with our above findings and conclusions.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of interest u/s 24(b) - Held that:- Section 24(b) talks of allowing deduction for the interest payable by the assessee where property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital. The assessee has admittedly shown some income from let out property under the head ‘Income from house property.’ Once some term loan has been taken for acquiring or constructing, etc., the property, which fetched income under the head ‘Income from house property’, then, interest on such loan has to be allowed as deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act. The view point of the assessee to this extent is ergo accepted in principle. However, we are unable to calculate such amount of interest with precision. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside on this score and the matter is sent back to the AO for verifying and ascertaining the amount of loan utilized for the building in respect of which rental income assessable under the head ‘Income from house property’ was earned and, accordingly, allowing deduction towards such interest u/s 24(b) of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 1 lac. - Held that:- Undisputed fact that some of the expenses incurred by the assessee were backed only by the internal vouchers. This view point of the AO has not been controverted by the ld. AR. It is but natural that if some of the expenses are not properly substantiated with evidence, then disallowance to that extent is called for. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances prevailing in this case and taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the disallowance is reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Disallowance of ₹ 86,400/- on account of festival expenses - Held that:- The aspect of necessity considered by the AO is of no substance. The AO cannot step into the shoes of the businessman to decide as to whether a particular expenditure is necessary or not. Coming to the second aspect about the non-availability of bills, we find two invoices for ₹ 66,000/- and ₹ 20,400/- in respect of 110 pieces of pressure cookers and 120 pieces of gift bags,thus find no reason to make or sustain any disallowance in this regard. - Decided in favour of assessee. Ad hoc disallowance of expenses @ 10% on account of personal nature - Held that:- No reason to disturb the finding of the authorities below in making and sustaining the disallowance @ 10% of these expenses towards personal use. This disallowance, being reasonable, is upheld.- Decided in favour of revenue. Disallowance towards payment of contribution to ESI - late deposits - Held that:- here is no doubt on the fact that the employees’ share of ESI relating to the month of June, 2008 was deposited within the year though beyond the due date under the respective Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. & Others, 321 ITR 508 (Del), has held that if the employees’ share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, then, no disallowance can be made. Disallowance deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|