TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Expenditure Tax Exclusion in Business Receipts for Section 80HHD Deduction</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Adyar Gate Hotel Limited.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Adyar Gate Hotel Limited. - [2007] 293 ITR 86 Issues:1. Whether expenditure tax, luxury tax, and sales tax should be included in the total business receipts for computation of deduction under section 80HHD.2. Whether the refund of expenditure tax should be considered as part of the income for the current year.Issue No.1:The High Court analyzed whether expenditure tax, luxury tax, and sales tax should be included in the total business receipts for computing the deduction under section 80HHD. The court referred to various decisions, including CIT v. Wheels India Ltd., where it was held that sales tax and excise duty should not be included in the total turnover for section 80HHC deduction. The court also cited CIT v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., emphasizing that only receipts with an element of profit should be part of the total turnover. Additionally, the court mentioned the case of CIT v. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., which reiterated the exclusion of receipts like excise duty and sales tax that lack a profit element from the total turnover. Based on these precedents, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision that expenditure tax, luxury tax, and sales tax should not be included in the total business receipts for section 80HHD computation.Issue No.2:Regarding the treatment of the refund of expenditure tax as part of the income for the current year, the court examined the Tribunal's finding that the refund was granted in the next assessment year. The court noted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the actual refund date falling in the subsequent assessment year, making it non-taxable for the year in question. Consequently, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision on this matter. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
TaxTMI 