TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered view, the conclusion of the CIT(A) denying deduction u/s. 80IB qua purported DEPB receipt, is not found to be correct. No material is adduced by the DR to take a contrary view. We, therefore, reversing the impugned order, hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee as such. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. Computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80IB ignoring the provisions of section 80IB(13) r/w sec. 80IA(9) - Held that:- Referring to the varied decisions in the matter laying our hands on the decision favourable to the assessee rendered in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] relied by assessee, we reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition amounting to ₹ 1,47,827/- on account of foreign travelling treated as personal expenses instead of business expenses, which is illegal and uncalled for. 4. That the order of the CIT(Appeal) is against law facts. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to ground No. 1 are that the assessee derives income from manufacturing and export of handloom goods. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IB amounting to ₹ 32,28,340/-.The AO did not allow any deduction u/s. 80IB. The assessee had received ₹ 2,51,48,410/- as export incentives, i.e., DEPB and claimed deduction u/s. 80IB on this amount of DEPB also. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r deduction u/s. 80IB. For this, he has relied upon the case laws mentioned above. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the recent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been categorically held that export house premium received by assessee as a supporting manufacturer forms an integral part of the sale price realized by the assessee from the export house. Besides, for the proposition that DEPB received by the assessee is an integral part of turnover of assessee, as a supporting manufacturer, the ld. Counsel for the assessee further lays his hands on the following decisions of ITAT, which have been decided by the Tribunal in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0HHC. Therefore, placing reliance on this decision the Tribunal in the case of Flora Exports (supra) held that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB in respect of sale of DEPB received as supporting manufacturer. Thus, in view of catena of decisions relied upon by the assessee, in our considered view, the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) denying deduction u/s. 80IB qua purported DEPB receipt, is not found to be correct. No material is adduced by the ld. DR to take a contrary view. We, therefore, reversing the impugned order, hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee as such. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 4. The facts relevant to ground No. 2 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 2 before us. 5. On this count, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT Anr. 332 ITR 0042, wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. He has also referred to the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Exports vs. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 14 (Del.) which has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In this situation, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that where two views were possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted in terms of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowance of ₹ 1,47,827/- on account of foreign traveling. The AO disallowed these expenses stating that the assessee debited expenses under the head foreign traveling expenses and claimed such expenses of ₹ 3,15,442/-, out of which no supporting bills/vouchers could be placed in respect such expenses of ₹ 1,47,827/-. The ld. CIT(A) also disallowed these expenses for want of any supporting evidence in the form of bills/vouchers. This disallowance has been assailed by way of ground No. 3 above. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and the material on record and we find no infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) on this count. For want of any bills/vouchers or supporting evidence to substantiate foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
