TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 80-IA have to be excluded while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. This Court had, as pointed out by both counsel, already held, succinctly, in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2009 (5) TMI 574 - KERALA HIGH COURT] that by virtue of specific exclusion of section 80-IB(13) of the Act the assessee is not entitled to simultaneous deduction of both. In other words, while computing the deduction under section 80HHC, deduction granted under section 80-IB cannot be reckoned or has to be excluded. We find no reason to depart from the aforesaid finding of this Court nor do we find any cause for reconsideration. In K. Ravindranathan Nair's case [ 2007 (11) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] the issue that arose for consideration was for the years 1993-94 and as observed in that case, the provisions of section 80HHC is no longer a complete code by itself after the subsequent amendments and restrictions. The Supreme Court was considering the computation of export incentive under section 80HHC(3) and the question, in that case, was whether the processing charges can be included in the total turnover while arriving at the export profits. The deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -IB or section 80-IA of the Act? (iii) Whether the activity of packing and sterilization of gloves purchased or produced by the appellant in non-sterilized form from the market would amount to a process of manufacture for the purpose of section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act? 3. The first two questions arise in all the four years while the third question arises only for the year 2003-04. The circumstances arising in the assessment year 2000-01 are considered as the lead case. I.T.A. No. 347 of 2010 (arising from AY 2000-01) 4. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and trading of latex gloves. In the revised return filed for the assessment year 2000-01, it declared a total income of ₹ 1,63,74,320/-. After the assessing officer issued notice for reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), though the assessee initially objected to the same, after the objections were rejected, a return was filed claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act as follows: (i) Deduction under section 80HHC : ₹ 1,16,29,181/- (ii) Deduction under section 80-IB : ₹ 1,05,77,345/- (iii) Deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court for an authoritative decision, the consideration of these appeals may be deferred. 10. The learned counsel further submitted, on behalf of the assessee, that, the intention of section 80-IA(9) was clear that the deductions are to be granted cumulatively. According to the learned counsel, the statute does not incorporate any prohibition in the grant of simultaneous deduction and on the other hand, the very intention behind providing different heads of deductions under the same Chapter was to give maximum benefit to the assessee. It was therefore submitted that since the decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) case was wrongly decided, the same may require reconsideration. 11. Adv. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand submitted that, this Court is bound by the decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and hence there was no requirement to defer the consideration of these appeals. He further submitted that these appeals have been pending consideration before this Court for the last more than 11 years and hence, it was not in the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 80HHC. 16. In fact this Court had, as pointed out by both counsel, already held, succinctly, in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) that by virtue of specific exclusion of section 80-IB(13) of the Act the assessee is not entitled to simultaneous deduction of both. In other words, while computing the deduction under section 80HHC, deduction granted under section 80-IB cannot be reckoned or has to be excluded. We find no reason to depart from the aforesaid finding of this Court nor do we find any cause for reconsideration. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. K. Ravindranathan Nair [ (2007) 15 SCC 1] contended that the decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) has not laid down the correct proposition of law. In K. Ravindranathan Nair's case (supra) the issue that arose for consideration was for the years 1993-94 and as observed in that case, the provisions of section 80HHC is no longer a complete code by itself after the subsequent amendments and restrictions. The Supreme Court was considering the computation of export inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
