TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 898X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 10B of the Act – Held that:- The AO did not make any adjustment for expenses in computing 10B deduction, who has made the adjustment on account of expenditure relatable to any income to which Section 10 applies for the purpose of 115JB which has been held by the CIT(A) against the law and he had allowed the appeal for Section 115JB computation of income – the ground does not exist from the order of the AO as well as order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 211/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. P. Jhangid, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Dhinal Shah, A. R. ORDER Per : Shri T. R. Meena, Accountant Member This appeal is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . D.R. fairly accepted that the A.O. had calculated the book profit as per Section 115JB as per the direction of the CIT(A), which has been accepted by the ld. A.R. for the assessee. Considering the facts of the case, the Revenue s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 5. Ground no.2 is against considering effect of sale of scrap and disallowance of its expenses relatable to export turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s. 10B of the IT Act. The A.O. observed that as per Section 10 B(1), the deduction is available on income which is derived from the export or article or things by 100% export oriented undertaking. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s.10B on interest of FDR, sale of scrap and packing material has been affected in local ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Gandhinagar for allowing them import of capital goods and raw materials. However, the mere fact that the deposit was made for the purpose of business of the industrial undertaking does not establish a direct nexus between the interest earned and the industrial undertaking. It is the deposit which is the source of Income and is derived from funds and not from the industrial undertaking. This decision is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court on similar facts in the case of Menon Impex (P) Ltd (2003) 259 ITR 403 (Mad) and also the decision of Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Shams Tabrez Vanti, reported at (2005) 273 ITR 299 (AAR). Therefore the decision of AO is upheld and ground No.1 is dismissed. As far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
