Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eceivable by the assessee under section 80HHD. Similarly, the benefit received or receivable under section 80HHD by the assessee is not regulated by the benefit received or receivable under section 80HHC. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not erred in upholding the views of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had directed the Assessing Officer to exclude foreign exchange receipts taken into account for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC - Decided against revenue - I. T. A. No. 767 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Appellant: P. K. Bhowmik, Advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had directed the Assessing Officer to exclude foreign exchange receipts taken into account for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had held in favour of the assessee on the basis of an earlier order of the Tribunal passed on February 25, 2005 in I. T. A. Nos. 888 and 889 (Kol)/2004. When the matter came up before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax for the same reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in its judgment and order dated February 25, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the parity between the numerator and the denominator. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the allowable deduction under section 80HHC as per guidelines mentioned hereinabove. 4. Mr. Bhowmik appearing for the appellant-Revenue drew our attention to sub-section (7) of section 80HHD, which provides as follows : (7) Where a deduction under sub-section (1) is claimed and allowed in respect of profits derived from the business of a hotel, such part of profits shall not qualify to that extent for deduction for any assessment year under any other provisions of this Chapter under the heading C.-Deductions in respec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted that deduction availed of by an assessee under section 80HHD cannot be the subject matter of any deduction under the heading C of Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act. He contended that section 80HHC is also a part of Chapter VI-A under the heading C . It is because of this reason that the profit earned by the assessee from the hotel business was not taken into account but the turnover of the hotel business was taken into account for the purpose of working out the deduction admissible under section 80HHC. 6. We have not been impressed by this submission. Section 80HHC provides for deduction in respect of profits retained for export business whereas section 80HHD provides for deduction in respect of earnings in convertible forei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d Tribunal in its judgment and order dated February 25, 2005 passed in I. T. A. Nos. 888 and 889(Kol)/2004 with which we are in agreement. The Department had accepted the judgment of the learned Tribunal. The Department subsequently, however, by a second thought made a half-hearted attempt by presenting an appeal with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal of 900 days, which was dismissed in limine by an order dated May 12, 2008 which reads as follows : We have perused the application for condonation of delay. We do not find any sufficient cause or ground in the application to condone the delay of 900 days. Further, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. We have found that the Tribunal has extensively dealt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates