TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is also eligible for deduction under section 80IB - Held that:- Tribunal following the decision ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,(2009 (6) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-C ) decided the issue against the assessee in principle which was reversed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules vs. CIT (2011 (1) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and, therefore, it is no longer a good law.This aspect of the matter has not been contested by the Revenue before us - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2005, I.T.A.No. 3289/Mum/2006, I.T.A.No. 3290/Mum/2006, I.T.A. No.3262/Mum/2006, I.T.A. No.3263/Mum/2006 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2015 - SHRI G.S. PANNU AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta For The Revenue : Ms. Vandana Sagar ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M: The captioned five appeals were originally disposed of by the Tribunal vide a common order dated 27/10/2010. Subsequently, on a Miscellaneous Application preferred by the assessee, Tribunal vide its order in MA Nos.255 to259/Mum/2013 dated 3/1/2014 partially recalled the earlier order dated 27/10/2010 for re-adjudication on two issues, which is common in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation of profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC without appreciating that the computation formula provided in S.80HHC without appreciating that the computation formula provided in S. 80HHC cannot be tinkered with by excluding the profits of the new industrial undertaking without adjusting the other figures namely export turnover, total turnover, etc. 10.3 without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) ought to have excluded only the deduction u/s.80HHC computed in respect of the exports from the new industrial undertaking considering the profits of the new industrial undertaking as only in respect of that profit there could be double deduction. 4. Ground of appeal No.3, in the appeal of the Revenue, which has also been recalled for adjudication, reads as under: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the Advance Licence Benefit, DEPB entitlement and DFRC benefit as covered u/s. 28(iiib) of the Act for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80 HHC without appreciating that only those items of profit which are specifically mentioned in the relevant provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT (supra). Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an order on this aspect as per law. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.6 in the appeal of the assessee and cross Ground of appeal No.3 in the appeal of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In so far as Ground of appeal No.10 in the assesse s appeal is concerned, the same also relates to the manner of computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. On this aspect, the controversy relates to the deduction allowable under section 80HHC of the Act, where the assessee is also eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer had allowed the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, after reducing the amount of deduction allowed under section 80IA/80IB of the Act in view of the provisions of section 80IA(9)/80IB(13) of the Act. On the earlier occasion, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,119 ITD 107(Del) (SB) decided the issue against the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f s.28(iii) read with s.80HHC it is only the profit on the transfer of DEPB Scheme which is covered by the amended section 80HHC and that the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the entire proceeds from the sale of DEPB as covered by the said amendment. 9. Re: Not ignoring the loss from trading exports in working out the deduction u/s. 80HHC. 9.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the loss suffered from trading exports for working out the overall deduction u/s. 80HHC. The learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the contention of the Appellant that the loss should be considered as Nil in working out the overall deduction u/s.80HHC and the deduction u/s. 80HHC ought to have been granted with respect only to the export incentives under the proviso to S.80HHC(3). Revenue s Ground of appeal:- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the indirect cost of the business by 10% of the export incentives for computation of profit in respect of export of trading goods for deduction u/s. 80HHC without appreciating the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
