TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer, in respect of the project executed by M/s. Jurong Engineering Ltd. (JEL) at Queensland, Australia, is not in order. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of executing power projects in India and abroad and also carrying on the business of conversion of steel for various projects. The assesse company is assessed to tax for the past several years admitting earnings in foreign currency and claiming deduction under sections 80-O, 80HHC and 80HHB on export business over the years. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80HHB in respect of a project undertaken at Abu Dhabi during the assessment year under consideration. He also found that similar claim was made by the assessee during the assessment year 2001-02 also in respect of projects at Sharjah, Curaco, Abu Dhabi and Singapore. From the records, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee executed a repairs and maintenance project which was not a foreign project within the meaning of section 80HHB. After going through the copies of invoices, working, etc., furnished by the assessee in support of its cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the hon'ble jurisdictional Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case vide its order in I. T. A. No. 1777/ Mds/06 dated November 30, 2007 has held that shut down of refinery will not qualify as foreign project for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHB. Before us, the learned Departmental representative relied on the assessment order and the grounds of appeal filed before us and reiterated the contents of the same as his submission. He also pointed out that in the assessee's own case in I. T. A. No. 1777/Mds/06 dated November 30, 2007, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that shut down of refinery will not qualify as foreign project for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHB. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and reiterated the contents therein as his submission before us. He submitted that the earlier year's case is factually different from the appeal of this year. He specifically referred to paragraph 9 of the order of the Tribunal (supra) wherein the Tribunal has observed that the term "assembling" or "installation" of any machinery or plant cannot be extrapolated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any design, patent, invention or registered trade mark as envisaged in section 80-O. He was of the view that section 80-O is amended with effect from April 1, 1998 and consideration received from providing technical and professional services is not eligible for deduction. Hence, he disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 80-O to the extent of Rs. 41,87,295. Aggrieved, the assessee moved the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. In the first appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that it was drawings and documents that were prepared by the assesseecompany for M/s. JEL, specific to the contract undertaken by M/s. JEL, and consideration was received for preparation of such drawings and documents. He was of the view that section 80-O deduction cannot be said to be restricted to the consideration for a right to use drawings pre-existing with the assessee. Further, he was of the view that even drawings made for a specific project would be entitled to deduction in terms of section 80-O as long as the consideration in convertible foreign exchange was received for supply of such drawings. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds of appeal filed in this regard are as under : 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in restricting the disallowance made towards bad debts from Rs. 20,10,862 to Rs. 3,47,419. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee has not furnished any evidence before the Assessing Officer on the bad debt claim. 2.3 In the absence of any finding by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as regards, the write off of bad debts in the books of the assessee-company, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the erection work mainly of power projects in India and abroad as well as design work for the execution of the various projects outside India and manufacture of various items of steel under the fabrication division, which is used for the erection work at various sites. The assesseecompany filed a return of income for the assessment year under consideration on October 29, 2004 showing a loss of Rs. 38,02,820 under the normal computation and a book profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
