TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Exclusion of Export Incentives & Duty Draw Back from the computation of profit eligible for relief under section 80 IB - Held that:- This issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it was held that deduction u/s 80IB is not allowable in respect of export incentive in the form of DDB and DEPB. - Decided against assessee. Computaion of deduction U/s 80HHC - whether is liable to be computed independently without reducing the amount of deduction U/s 80IA - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case in assessment year 2002-03 deduction u/s 80HHC and 80-IB have to be independently computed and they have to be ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beneficial provisions should be construed liberally . 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that Export Incentives Duty Draw Back is an amount which is directly linked to the activity of export and such incentive/income cannot be attributed to be derived or arisen directly from industrial operations of the concern eligible for deduction under section 80 IA and on that basis in excluding the sums amounting to ₹ 1,83,03,833/- from the computation of profit eligible for relief under section 80 IB. 4. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the principle that in case of conflict in judicial opinion, the view favourable to the assessee should be followed , the CIT(A) should have upheld the appellant's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of DEPB. Since this issue was not decided by authorities below in this manner, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision on this aspect in the light of this judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. Ground No. 1 2 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Regarding the second issue as per ground No. 3 4, we find that this issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that deduction u/s 80IB is not allowable in respect of export incentive in the form of DDB and DEPB. Accordingly, on this issue, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dently computed and they have to be circumscribed by the overall limit as prescribed u/s 80A(2) of the Act only. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jt. ACIT vs. Mandideep Engineering and Packing India Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 292 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that section 80HHC and 80-I are independent of each other and therefore, a new industrial unit can claim deduction under both the sections on the gross total income independently. 10. We find that in assessment year 2002-03 in assessee s own case, similar issue was before the Tribunal and as per Para 19 of its decision, it was held that deduction u/s 80HHC and 80-IB have to be independently computed and they have to be circumscribed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be attributed to be derived or arisen directly from industrial operations of the concern eligible for deduction under section 80 IA , and on that basis in excluding the sums amounting to ₹ 1,62,64,747/- from the computation of profit eligible for relief under section 80 IB. 4. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the principle that in case of conflict in judicial opinion, the view favourable to the assessee should be followed , the CIT(A) should have upheld the appellant's claim for inclusion of the said sum of Rs,l,62,64,747/- in the computation of eligible profit, for the purposes of quantification of claim for exemption under section 80IB of the Act . 5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction U/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that two deductions U/s 80HHC and 80IA are not governed by the provisions of Section 80IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and are mutually exclusively to be considered. 3. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer restored. 16. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that in this year also, the grounds are same as were raised by the Revenue in assessment year 2003-04 and same can be decided on similar line. In assessment year 2003-04, this issue was decided against the Revenue and in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
