Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Versus KEC International Ltd.

2015 (3) TMI 540 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Computation of deduction u/s 80HHB - CIT (Appeals) allowed the appellant's appeal by holding that when each project is different and the deduction is per project, then it would not be justified in clubbing the income of all projects for the purposes of working out the deduction available under Section 80HHB - Held that:- It is not disputed by the revenue that the issue stands concluded by the decision in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (2015 (2) TMI 718 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein holding t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cluded in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Associated Cables P. Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 135 - BOMBAY High Court] wherein held the payment of retention money in the case of contract is deferred and is contingent on satisfactory completion of contract work. The right to receive the retention money is accrued only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, it would not amount to an income of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar 198384. 2. This appeal was admitted on 31 March 2000 only on the two following substantial question of law: "(a) Whether assessee was right in computing deduction u/s 80HHB? (b) Whether assessee was entitle to deduction for Retention Money?" Re. Question (a): 3. The appellant was interalia engaged in the business of executing projects outside India as defined in Section 80HHB of the Act. The appellant was executing foreign projects i.e. two in Iran, six in Libya and one in Thailand. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd. reported in 161 ITR 320. However the Assessing Officer clubbed income/losses of all foreign projects and restricted the benefit of deduction available under Section 80HHB of the Act. Consequently, restricting the benefits of deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act to ₹ 90.80 Lakhs as against ₹ 1 Crore claimed by the respondent. 4. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the 'CIT(A) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eduction is claimed without taking into account losses from some of the other foreign projects. 5. The revenue being aggrieved by the same carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) interalia holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in principle is applicable to the present facts. It interalia held for the purposes of computing the gross total income, the entire result of all project .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the issue arising in this question is no longer res integra. The question stands concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 733. In the above case, the following questions had been referred to this Court for its opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHB in respect of each pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

greater force in relation to the deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act although the above decision pertains to the assessment year 196667 and 196768 whereas Section 80AB has been inserted from April 1, 1981, due to which there was material change in the relevant legal provisions? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 80AB do not in any way curtail the assessee's claim fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version