TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Pramod Kumar: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee has called into question correctness of CIT(A) s order dated 13th November, 2006, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2003-04. 2. In Ground No.1, the assessee has raised the following grievance: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s.41(1) of ₹ 3,06,20,848 being the difference in the sales tax loan liability and the actual payment, representing the net present value of existing liability in respect of the same made during F.Y. 2002-03 under the sales tax 1993 package scheme of incentive. 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 directed the AO to exclude 90% of the sales of services from the profits of business under Explanation (baa) to Section 80 HHC. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 1998-99 and the matter has been set aside to the file of the AO Officer to re-work the assessee s claim u/s. 80 HHC based on the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lakshmi Machine, , 290 ITR 667(SC and K.Ravindranathan Nair, 295 ITR 228 (SC).. Learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A). Learned counsel also submits that the decision in the case of k.Ravindranat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the eligible deduction of assessee u/s. 80 HHC in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Machine and K.Ravindranathan Nair (supra). Therefore, we set aside the orders of the authorities below in this regard and direct the Assessing Officer to re-work the assessee s claim u/s. 80 HHC based on the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lakshmi Machine and K.Ravindranathan Nair (supra). Hence, this ground is disposed of with the above direction. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee s own case (supra), we remit the issue to the file of the AO rework the assessee s claim under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business in view of the provisions contained in section 80IB(13) r.w.s. 80IA(9) and allowed deduction at ₹ 1,75,11,808. Vide order u/s. 154, the assessee has been allowed deduction of ₹ 1,80,74,609 claimed earlier. the CIT (A) observed that the since the export turnover constitutes 5.53% of the total turn over of Nasik Unit, 5.53% of the deduction allowed u/s 80IB may be taken to be the deduction allowed in respect of profit from export which are eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC. Therefore, he was of the opinion that the deduction u/s. 80IB relatable to exports i.e. 5.53% of ₹ 1,80,74,609 at ₹ 9,92,600 be excluded instead of whole deduction of ₹ 1,75,11,808 allowed u/s. 80IB and directed the AO to rework out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim whole deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the Act. 17. Ground No.3(iii) is thus allowed. 18. In Ground No.4, the assessee is aggrieved against disallowance of deduction u/s. 80M on dividend distributed. 19. Briefly stated the relevant material facts are like this. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had earned dividend income of ₹ 77,01,248. The assessee also distributed dividend amounting to ₹ 1,74,000. Since the dividend distributed by the assessee was higher than the dividend income, the assessee claimed deduction to the extent of ₹ 76,51,248 u/s. 80M of the I.T.Act after suo moto apportioning expenses of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
