TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim for deduction was made merely to diminish the tax burden. Interest under Sections 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act - Whether interest can be charged in an order of rectification under Section 154 for the first time - Held that:- If the return is not filed within time or if advance tax is not paid within time then the assessee is liable to pay interest and the payment of interest is mandatory – Following - CIT v. M/s. Ruchira Papers Ltd. [2012 (10) TMI 60 - HIMACHAL PRADESH, HIGH COURT] - if the AO or the appellate authority does not order the payment of interest, the assessee cannot be directed to pay interest by the demand notice - levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act for all the years sustained. Deduction u/s 80HHC - Exclusion of 90% of insurance receipts and miscellaneous income from the profits - Held that:- There was no reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that 90% of the insurance receipts and miscellaneous income are to be excluded for the purpose of computing relief under sec.80HHC of the Act – Following CIT vs. Ravindranathan Nair [2007 (11) TMI 10 - Supreme Court of India] - it is clear that packing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of this Tribunal is placed on record. We have gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and find that this Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the Revenue in assessee s own case for the earlier Asst. Years in ITA No.414 to 416/Mds/2012 by order dated 27.11.2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal held as under :- 2. The facts involved in all these appeals are similar. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture cum sale of cotton yarn and fabric and generation of electricity. The assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 declaring nil taxable income and for the assessment year 1998-99 the assessee declared the total income at Rs. 2,85,77,710 under sec. 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The returns were processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the taxable income was determined at Rs. 3,36,836/- for the assessment year 1993- 94, at Rs.7,92,03,840/- for the assessment year 1994-95 and at Rs.4,26,18,650/- for the assessment year 1998-99. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act reassessment proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the above referred to Special Leave Petition as well as Civil Appeal. The questions of law are not answered and are referred back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. This Tax Case (Appeal) stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs. 4. As per the directions of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, the learned CIT(Appeals) decided the issue as under : 9. .it is clear from perusal of the facts of the present appeal that the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) can be squarely applied in the instant case. The questions raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ors regarding the tests for determining the nature of expenditure and the allowability u/s 37 are also answered by the judgement in the case of Sri Mangyarkarasi Mills)P. Ltd. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 553 (AP) , it was held The entire textile machinery cannot be regarded as a single asset, replacement of parts which can be considered to be for the mere purpose of preserving or maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. Ltd. (315 ITR 114) (SC) , has held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is capital expenditure. The very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of The Kumaran Mills Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No. 754/Mds/2012 dated 12-09-2012. The relevant portion in the said decision is reproduced hereunder: 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue for adjudication before us is whether the expenditure incurred for the purpose of replacement of Draw Frame is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The learned CIT(Appeals) by considering the entire facts of the case and also the decisions of various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decision in the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) and by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Mangarkarasi Mills Ltd. (supra) has held that replacement of Draw Frame is a capital expenditure. For that proposition the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on the decisions in the case of Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (106 ITR 900) (SC) and Lakshmiji Sugar Mills P. Co. v. CIT AIR 1972 SC 159 and obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he third substantial question of law is also covered as per the judgment of this Court dated 25.04.2011 in Tax Case (Appeals) Nos. 71 72 of 2008. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we hold that the third question of law is also answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 7. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT, Madurai v. Madura Coats (supra), we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals). His order is accordingly confirmed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. Respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and also the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. Respectfully following the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this ground of appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the exclusion of 90% of insurance receipts and miscellaneous income from the profits while computing deduction under sec.80HHC of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer while computing deduction under sec.80HHC excluded 90% of insurance receipts and miscellaneous income as such income is not derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction under sec.80HHC of the Act, applying the provisions of clause (baa) of Explanation to Sec.80HHC of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee, held as under :- 5.2 I have perused the submissions made by the appellant and also the order of the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble ITAT has set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ravindranathan Nair (2007) in 295 ITR 228 (SC) and also to discus as to whether insurance receipts are directly relating to export activity or not. During the course of appellate proceedings, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
