TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT) that deduction u/s 80HHC has to be allowed on the full amount of export profits instead of on the reduced rate of 30% in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessee itself has computed deduction u/s 80HHC even on the book profit without applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2010 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT ). When the revision proceedings /s 263 were initiated only on the point of setting off of loss suffered in export of trading goods while computing deduction us 80HHC, then the claim of the assessee that while computing MAT liability of the assessee u/s 115JB deduction u/s 80HHC shall be allowed on the full amount instead of 30% of the profit derived from ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, equity, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That the order passed u/s 263 by the Learned CIT is erroneous having regard to the facts, circumstances and law on the issue. 3. That the order passed u/s 263 by the Learned CIT is barred by limitation requires to be cancelled. 4. The CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 without first satisfying that the assessment order suffered from an error which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. The CIT erred in issuing the notice u/s 263 when there was no error from the records available. 6. That the CIT erred in holding that orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Thereafter, the CIT passed revision order dated 12/2/2009 which was challenged by the assessee before this Tribunal in ITA No.518/Bang/2009 on the ground that the CIT has passed the impugned order dated 12/2/2009 without considering the reply filed by the assessee in response to the show cause notice. The Tribunal vide its order dated 30/10/2009, restored the matter to the record of the CIT to decide the issue after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the CIT has passed the impugned order dated 30/3/2012 whereby it was held that the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) dated 30/11/2006 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue inasmuch as deduction u/s 80HHC has been wrongly computed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sections 80HHC and 115JB operate in different spheres. Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that section 80HHC(1) refers to eligibility whereas sec.80HHC(3) refers to computation of tax incentive. Sec.115JB is a self-contained code as it taxes deemed income. Thus for computing book profits, downward adjustment would be the full amount of export profits. Therefore, clause (iv) of Explanation to sec.115JB covers full export profits of 100% as eligible profit and the same cannot be reduced to the slab percentage as in the normal computation of income of the assessee. He has pointed out that by following the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd.(supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his finding of the CIT has not been disputed by the assessee that loss suffered under export of trading goods was to be set off against the amount as per proviso to sec.80HHC(3), then the deduction u/s 80HHC would be ₹ 67,47,326/- as against the claim of ₹ 4,48,59,326/-. We find that the issue involved in the revision proceedings is limited only to the extent of not setting off of loss suffered by the assessee in the export of trading goods in terms of proviso to sec.80HHC(3) and therefore, there was no issue regarding allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on the full amount of export profit while computing MAT liability u/s 115JB. The CIT has directed the AO that while computing MAT liability under the provisions of sec.115JB, deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
