TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 04. The assessee has also field CO No./230/M/09 against the very same order of the CIT(A). 2. First we shall take up for consideration ITA No.5176/M/07 (Assesee's Appeal). Ground No.1 raised by the assessee reads as follows: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that surplus of ₹ 2,32,48,277/- arising on prepayment of deferred sales was a revenue receipt liable to tax u/s. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the said addition. 3. The assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of making abrasives. It also deals in ceramic and plastics. In the preceding assessment years, the Assesseee had availed of the benefits of deferral of sales tax offered by the Government of Maharashtra as an incentive for rapid industrialization of the developing regions of the State of Maharashtra. The Sales tax Incentive Scheme was availed by the Assesseee in respect of its plant at Butibori Industrial Area at Nagpur (Butibori Plant). In accordance with the Sales tax Incentive Scheme, 1993, the sales tax collected in respect of the Butibori Plant was credited separately to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of deferred Sales Tax and this Tribunal held as follows:- 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Ltd vs JCIT (42 SOT 457) wherein it has been held that the deferred sales tax liability being the difference between the payment of net present value against the future liability credited by the assessee under the capital reserve account in its books of account was a capital receipt and could not be termed as remission/cessation of liability and, consequently, no benefit would arise to the assessee in terms of section 41(1)(a). There is no dispute that material facts of the case before us are the same as were the facts before the Special Bench in Sulzer's case. Learned Departmental Representative, however, makes elaborate submission in support of his stand that the Special Bench decision in the case of Sulzer India Limited (supra) calls for a reconsideration and that it is not correct. He submits that even though the issue is covered by the Special Bench decision, we must take independent view of the matter since the Special Bench decision is, what he terms as, per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicate upon such submissions. That apart, we are in most respectful and considered agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the Special Bench and we find that all the necessary aspects of the natter have been considered by the Special Bench in a very comprehensive and elaborate order. The findings of the Special Bench in Sulzer's case (supra) can be summarized as follows: In order to invoke the provisions of section 41(1), the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) In the assessment of the assessee, an allowance or deduction has been made in respect of loss, expenditure or the trading liability incurred by the assessee. (ii) The assessee must have subsequently (i) obtained any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or (ii) obtained any benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof . In case either of these events happen, the deeming provision enacted in closing part of sub-section (1) comes into play. (iii) The amount obtained by the assessee or the value of benefit accruing to him is deemed to be profit and gain of the business or profession and it becomes chargeable to income-tax as an income of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present value of the deferred tax as may be prescribed and on making such payments, in the public interest, the deferred tax shall be deemed to have been paid. [Para 73] In the instant case, the assessee had collected total amount of ₹ 752.01 lakhs towards sales tax during the years 1989-90 to 2001-02. It was treated as a loan liability payable after 12 years in six annual/equal instalments and, thus, the assessee treated the said liability as unsecured loans in its books of account. [Para 76] Pursuant to the amendment made to sub-section (4) of section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 by substituting the 4th proviso which provides for payment of Net Present Value (NPV) of deferred taxes under the package scheme of incentives, the State Government by Notification No. STR-12.02/CR-102/taxation-1, dated 16- 11-2002, introduced rule 31D in the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (BST Rules) laying down the procedure for determination of such NPV. The procedure for determination of NPV of the amount of deferred taxes having been published, the Deferral Units may exercise the option under 4th proviso to sub-section (4) of section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 of pre-matu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de para 5 that '...the statutory liability shall be treated to have been discharged for the purposes of section 43B' [Emphasis supplied]. Thus, the benefit of deduction was allowed for the purpose of section 43B only and not under any other provisions of the Act. There was no dispute that the Assessing Officer had also applied the aforesaid Board Circular while giving the benefit of deduction under section 43B. It is settled law that the circulars are binding on the department. It is also settled law that the Court cannot add words to statute or read words into it which are not there. This being so, it was to be opined that the first requirement of section 41(1) has not been fulfilled in the facts of the case. [Para 104] The other requirement of section 41(1) is that the assessee must have subsequently: (i) obtained any amount in respect of such loss and expenditure, or (ii) obtained any benefit in respect of such a trading liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof . In the instant case, the sales tax collected by the assessee during the years 1989- 90 to 2001-02 amounting to ₹ 752.01 lakhs was treated by the State Government as a loan liability payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not issued the modified eligibility certificate did not mean that the payment of ₹ 337.13 lakhs made by the assessee could not be accepted as having been paid at NPV of the future sum of ₹ 752.01 lakhs towards discharge of full liability. It is settled law that the law does not contemplate or require the performance of an impossible act-lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Further, both the parties had agreed during the course of their arguments that the entries recorded in the books of account were not determinative of the nature of transaction. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the assessee did not get modified eligibility certificate or the repayment of loan paid by the assessee at its NPV of future sum, then in those circumstances, merely because the assessee had passed necessary entries in its books of account, it could not be held that there was any cessation or remission of liability. [Para 106] The assessee was liable to pay sales tax amounts collected from 1-11-1989 to 31-10-1996, payments of which were deferred under the scheme, and the amounts were payable after twelve years in six equal annual instalments commencing from 1-5-2003, which meant th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the allocation of administrative expenses at the rate of 5% of dividend income. The Appellant submits that the allocation is wholly unjustified and the deduction u/s. 80M be granted on the gross dividend income. 6. The material facts as far as Ground No.2 is concerned are as follows: The assessee received dividend income of ₹ 30,66,430/-. In A.Y 2003-04 dividend income was taxable. Under section 80M of the Income Tax Act 1961(the Act) the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of the dividend income. Under section 80M deduction is allowed only on the net dividend income i.e. gross dividend income (-) expenses incurred in earning dividend income. According to the assessee it did not incur any expenses in earning dividend income and, therefore, the entire dividend income should be allowed as deduction under section 80M of the Act while computing total income. The AO was however of the view that the assessee had large Corporate Office/Head Office and incurred indirect expenses. He was of the view that the investment portfolio which yielded dividend income had to be monitored and supervised. He was, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -A constitutes a separate code dealing with deductions to be made in computing the total income. In order to compute deduction under section 80M, one has to compute the amount of dividend in accordance with the Act after deducting interest on monies borrowed for earning such income. The deductions contemplated by section 80M refer to actual expenditure whereas, deductions contemplated by section 20(1) are estimated proportionate expenses and interest. Therefore, one cannot import deduction from interest on securities in the case of a banking company under section 20(1) into the deductions contemplated by section 80M. Section 20(1) contains a rule of proportionality of expenses and interest and that rule is based on estimation of expenditure whereas, deduction under section SOM is allowable on net dividend arrived at after taking into account actual expenditure incurred for the purposes of earning such dividend unless the facts of a particular case warrant otherwise. The Special Bench of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation vs. DCIT 102 ITD 1 (Chd) (SB) has also taken the view that for the purpose of Section 80M only actual expenditure in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in reply pointed out that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United General Trust Ltd. (supra) was rendered in an appeal against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. United General Trust Ltd., 199 ITR 664 (Bom), wherein the revenue sought to raise the following question before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. (1973) 90 ITR 348 to the assessment year in question without considering the effect of the amendment operative from 1st April, 1968, and in thus holding that the assessee would be entitled to the deduction under S. 80M on the gross dividend before deduction of the proportionate management expenses? The Hon'ble Bombay High Court made the following observation. In our view, the question as framed does not really arise out of the Tribunal's order since the only question which was agitated before the Tribunal was whether the deduction under s. 80M of the Act was to be com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue and the assessee are agreed that the only question which was sought to be raised by the Revenue, but which was not allowed by the High Court, is concluded against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by the decision of this Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India and ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349; (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC). Indeed the same result follows from S.80AA, introduced by the Finance Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1968. For the above reason, the appeals are allowed. The application under S.256(2) of the IT Act, made by the revenue shall be deemed to have been allowed, a reference made and answered in the manner indicated above. (underlining by us for emphasis) It is significant to note that the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors(Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was as to whether deduction under section 80M of the Act had to be allowed on the gross dividend or net dividend. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that deduction under section 80M is to be calculated with reference to the net dividend i.e. cross dividend (-) expenses incurred in earning the dividend income. The question as sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues 4,42,000/- f) Sales Tax refund 27,13,822/- Ground No.1- Revenue's Appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to compute the deduction u/s. 80HHC by excluding 90% of the Miscellaneous Income of ₹ 7,64,81,198/- from the profits and gains of business. 13. We must clarify that as far as ground No.1 raised by the revenue is concerned, the same is factually incorrect. The AO while allowing deduction under section 80 HHC of the Act reduced from the profits of the business the following miscellaneous income which according to the AO did not have any nexus with the export activity of the assessee and, therefore, not in the nature of income under the head profits and gains of business or profession within the meaning of explanation- baa of section 80HHC of the Act. Following were the income so considered by the AO. Agency commission 45,10,200/- Interest 2,19,66,122/- Less: Interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee submitted that out of the interest income which was considered as not income from business as above, a sum of ₹ 69,51,438/- was interest in respect over due payments by the customers and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs.Grindwell Norton Ltd., 318 ITR 172 (Bom) (Assessee's own case) was pleased to hold that interest on over due payments from customers was income eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. 16. The ld. D.R however relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Star Company Ltd., 326 ITR 56 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228 (SC). In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Bombay High Court considered the following question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that net interest on fixed deposits in banks received by the assessee company should be considered for the purpose of working out deduction under section 80HH of the Act and not the gross interest? The Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the interest received by the assessee is on account of overdue payments on realization of export sales by the assessee then they have to be considered as business income. The AO is directed to examine the issue on the above lines and decide the issue after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 18. (b) Surplus on prepayment of deffered Sales Tax. ₹ 2,32,48,277/-: This ground become infructuous because we have already held that the surplus in question is not chargeable to tax as income. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 19. (c) and (d) Compensation for guarantees /Royalty. (c) and (d) were not pressed, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. 20. (e) Penalty levied on customers for bounced cheques -Rs.4,42,000/- This sum will also stand on the same footing of interest as interest on over due payments from customers. The AO is directed to examine as to whether penalties received by the assessee can be attributed to the payment by customers of the export business of the assessee. 21. (f) Sales Tax refunds: This can be conveniently decided together with the ground of the revenue as well as the sole ground of Cross Obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is thus allowed. 35. With regard to ground no. 3 (a), learned counsel for the assessee fairly concedes that the income from agency commission cannot be treated as business profit. He points out that assessee has suo motu reduced the agency commission from business profits, as evident from page 7 of the assessment order 36. However, as far as service charges in ground 3(a) are concerned, learned counsel urges us to take up this issue along with grievance raised in the cross objection. Grievance raised in the cross objection is as follows: Without prejudice to the contention of the respondent that ground 3(a) in the appeal filed by the department requires to be dismissed, in any event the respondent submits that the expenditure required to earn the service receipts must be netted (reduced) before arriving at the figure which is to be reduced from the 'profits and gains from business or profession' under Explanation (baa) below Section 80 HHC. 37. The assessee assembles the effluent treatment plant at customer's site and service charges represent charges received by the assessee in respect of the same. There are direct costs involved in this activity. While Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Asian Star Ltd. (supra) were that the assessee had debited net interest of ₹ 21.46 crores (being interest on borrowings for working capital) in its profit and loss account after setting off ₹ 3.25 crores of interest received on Fixed deposits and arrived at the profits of the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s.80-HHC of the Act. he assessee was called upon to explain as to why the deduction under section 80HHC should not be recomputed by excluding ninety per cent. of the interest received in the amount of ₹ 3.25 crores. By its explanation, the assessee submitted that during the year, it received interest on fixed deposits. The assessee stated that it had borrowed monies in order to fulfill its working capital requirements and the bank had called upon it to maintain a fixed deposit as margin money against the loans. The assessee consequently contended that there was a direct nexus between the deposits kept in the bank and the amounts borrowed. The Assessing Officer, while passing an order of assessment dated January 30, 2006, found that the explanation of the assessee could not be accepted since a plain reading of Explanation (baa) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. Parliament was, however, conscious of the fact that the expenditure incurred in earning the items which were liable to be excluded had already gone in to the computation of business profits. This was because the computation of business profits under Chapter IV is made by amalgamating the receipts as well as the expenditure incurred in carrying on the business. Since the expenditure incurred in earning the income by way of interest, brokerage, commission rent, charges or other similar receipts had also gone into the computation of business profits, Parliament thought it fit to exclude only ninety per cent. of the receipts received by the assessee in order to ensure that the expenditure which is incurred by the assessee in earning the receipts which has gone into the computation of the business profits is taken care of. In providing a simplified formula in these terms, Parliament evidently adopted a fair and reasonable statutory basis of what may be regarded as expenditure incurred for the earning of the receipts. The distortion of the profits that would take place by excluding the receipts received by the assessee which were unrelated to export turnover and not the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the above decision we dismiss the grievance projected by the assessee in Ground No. 3(f) of the ground of appeal. 26. At the time of hearing arguments were addressed on sale of Scrap which is the grievance projected in Ground No.1 of the revenue's appeal. As far as sale of scrap is concerned this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y 2004-05 in ITA No.434/M/09 was pleased to hold that sale of scrap has to be considered as income from business. Following the said decision we reject the ground No.1 of the revenue to this extent regarding scrap sales. Thus Ground No.3 of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground raised by the Revenue in Ground No.1 is partly allowed. Ground raised by the Assessee in its cross objection is dismissed. 27. Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee in its appeal reads as follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming that premium of ₹ 65,80,000/- paid on prepayment of Debentures was a capital expenditure. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to treat the said sum of ₹ 65,80,000/- as a revenue expenditure and allow the same. 28. The assessee had issued debentu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of loan. Since the payment was for discharge of capital liability, the same has to be treated as capital expenditure. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Hence, Gr.No.4 by the Assessee before the Tribunal. 31. The learned counsel for the Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd., 233 ITR 468 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles applicable in determining in determining whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue expenditure as follows: (1) Outlay is deemed to be capital when it is made for the initiation of a business, for extension of a business, or for a substantial replacement of equipment; (2) Expenditure may be treated as properly attributable to capital when it is made not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade. If what is got rid of by a lump sum payment is an annual business expense chargeable against revenue, the lump sum payment should equally be regarded as a business expense, but if the lump sum payment brings in a capital a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and ₹ 50,937 during the succeeding year in constructing a new building on the said land. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer the expenditure of the said sums of ₹ 1,62,835 and ₹ 50,937 in the relevant assessment years as capital loss. In the alternative, the assessee claimed deduction of the payments as business expenditure or as extra rent for the lease. Ultimately, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the expenditure of the said two amounts for the construction of a new building was in the nature of business expenditure for proper carrying on of the business of the assessee. The Tribunal had, therefore, treated these amounts as revenue expenditure. This was upheld by the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that right from inception, the building was of the ownership of the lessor. Therefore, by spending this money, the assessee did not acquire any capital asset. The only advantage which the assessee derived by spending the money was that it got the lease of a new building at a low rent. From the business point of view, therefore, the assessee got the benefit of reduced rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r years. The Hon'ble Court while coming to the above conclusion referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT 60 ITR 52 (SC) . It can thus be safely said that premium paid on premature redemption of debenture would be revenue expenditure. The expenditure was incurred in the previous year and was therefore to be allowed as a deduction. With regard to the submission of the learned D.R. that the expenditure should be spread over to the tenure of the debenture by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. (supra), we are of the view that the same is not acceptable. In the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn.(Supra) the facts were that the Assessee issued debentures at a discount and was bound to repay the debentures at face value after a period of 12 years. The question that arose for consideration was as to whether the entire discount had to be paid in the year of redemption or whether the same has to be spread over and claimed as deduction over 12 years, the period for which the debentures were issued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 4,00,920/- on account of delay in depositing the Company's contribution to Provident Fund and Labour Welfare Fund. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee vide Its letter dated January 30, 2006 requested the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of R.s.4,00,920/-, as the amount was duly deposited during the year under consideration, albeit late on the following dates: Company's contribution to Provident Fund (Bangalore) Month Amount Rs. Due Date Payment Date Nov.02 366,972 20th Dec.2002 28th Dec.2002 Company's towards contribution to Labour Welfare Fund (Mumbai) Period Amount (Rs.) Due Date Payment Date Jan.02 to June.02 16,956 15th July, 2002 18th July, 2002 Jul.02 to Mar.03 16,992 15th Jan.2003 17th Jan.2003 The Assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of ₹ 3,18,000/- in respect of commission paid. 40. During the previous year the Assessee paid commission of ₹ 3,18,000/- to Saint Gobain Abrasives (Singapore) (SGA Singapore) its Associated Enterprise(AE). In terms of Sec.92 of the Act, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). In AY 02-03 also in respect of identical payment of commission to an AE reference was made to TPO. The TPO was of the view that as per the policy of the group all affiliate companies were entitled to commission of 10% on export sales made in their respective countries whereas the Assessee had paid 12% to its AE SGA (Singapore). The commission had been paid to the AE for all sales by the Assessee to customers in South East Asian Countries. The TPO was of the view that payment of commission to entitled located in countries other than the country of sales was not properly explained. The TPO therefore held that the Assessee had not established services rendered for which co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irly conceded that he did not find any rationale for drawing an adverse Inference against export commission payments made by the Assessee to its associated enterprises. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in his appellate order for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 dated 23d March, 2007 has directed that the disallowance in respect of commission be deleted. 43. The Assessee submitted that disallowance identical to the one made In the immediately preceding assessment year has been made by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the current assessment year. The Assessee submitted that Transfer Pricing Officer has merely followed the order passed for the immediately preceding assessment year. It was further submitted that since the Transfer Pricing Officer has in the immediately preceding year, conceded that there was no rationale for drawing any adverse inference against the export commission payments made by the Assessee to its associated enterprises, the same should equally apply in the current year. The Assessee finally submitted that the Assessing Officer should be directed to delete the entire disallowance of R.s.3,18,000/- following the appellate order for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnational transaction as at ALP. The main reason for paying 12% commission as against the policy of paying commission at 10% to group companies has been explained by the Assessee as owing to one of its key employee Parag Kunte staying with the AE in Singapore and the fact that the AE bears all his salary. The strategy was to increase sales in Far East region by having Assessee's own employee. This explanation justifies payment of higher commission then the policy of paying 10% to group companies. Apart from the above, there are also instances where the Assessee has itself received more than 10% commission and had paid more than 12% commission to non AEs. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any intereference. Consequently, Gr.No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 47. Gr.No.3 raised by the Revenue in its appeal reads as follows: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to re-compute the deduction u/s. 80 HHC without making the deduction u/s. 80IB of ₹ 42,95,724/- while computing the deduction u/s. 80 HHC. 48. Identical issue was considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing deduction under section 80-IA(1) and also under other provisions under heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A, the provisions of section 80-IA(9) comes into operation. While accepting the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Revenue, it appears that the Delhi High Court failed to consider the important argument of the revenue noted in para 38 of its judgment. Moreover, without rejecting the argument of the revenue that section 80-IA(9) applies at the stage of allowing the deduction and not at the stage of computing the deduction, the Delhi High Court could not have held that section 80-IA(9) seeks to disturb the method of computing the deduction provided under other provisions under heading 'C' of Chapter VI-A of the Act. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to concur with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Exports (supra). For the same reason, we find it difficult to subscribe to the views expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Olam Exports (India) Ltd. (supra). 39. In the result, we hold that section 80-IA(9) does not affect the computability of deduction under various provisions under heading 'C& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
