Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (1) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... India. It is not clear whether these remittances have been included in the total turnover in the P&L account. We, therefore, direct the AO to re-compute deduction under section 10A by including the said remittances in the total turnover and by excluding the same from export turnover and excess claim if any will be disallowed. The profit of business will be computed excluding the remittances in the total turnover. In favour of revenue Disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery - Treatment of subsidy received from the Government in the computation of depreciation on p&m – Held that:- There is nothing on record to show that subsidy had been granted by the govt. towards any specific asset or p&m. Therefore, merely because amount re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er law. The assessee submitted that the buyer Raja Foods Chicago had sent the remittances which were not traceable by bankers. The assessee was in regular touch with the bankers to trace the payment received. Since the remittances had been received in India, assessee should be allowed deduction under section 10A in relation to said remittances. The AO however observed that the assessee provided no concrete proof to substantiate that the remittances had been received in India. He, therefore, disallowed the claim and added the sum of Rs. 14,78,565/-to the total income as unrealized debts. 2.1 The assessee disputed the decision of AO and submitted before CIT(A) that remittances had been received but could not be credited to the assessee's ba .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hould be allowed. He, also reiterated the alternate claim that disallowance if any should be limited to net profit from the remittances and not the entire remittances. 2.3 The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that bank certificate did not prove that the remittances had been credited in the account of the banker and, therefore it could not be said that the remittances had been received in India in convertible foreign exchange. He also supported the orders of authorities below for adding the entire amount as assessee had already claimed all expenses relating thereto in the P L Account. 2.4 We have perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding disallowance of deduction under section 10A in r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee has placed on record a certificate dated 24.1.2012 from State Bank of India which only states that the proceeds of the foreign remittances had been credited to the account of the assessee on 20.1.2011. The certificate does not even state that the foreign remittances had been credited in the account of the Bank within the period of six months so that it could be considered as having brought into India. Thus export proceeds to that extent had not been received in or brought in India within a period of six months. This period had not been extended by the authorities as assessee had not applied for any such extension. Therefore, such export proceeds have to be excluded from export turnover, while computing deduction under section 10A. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eceived subsidy towards any specific asset and, therefore, the same could not be reduced from the asset. CIT(A) noted from the letter dated 22.12.2006 of Ministry of Food Processing Industry that capital subsidy had been given for setting of unit for ready-to-eat foods at Gandhidham, Gujarat. CIT(A) also observed that the entire amount was paid towards plant and machinery and not towards any civil work. He, therefore, confirmed the disallowance made by AO, aggrieved by which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Before us ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities that the subsidy granted was a general subsidy and the same could not be reduced from the cost of assets. The ld. DR on the ot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates