High Court excludes surplus fund interest from business profits for deductions under Section 80HHC

Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Versus M/s Hansa Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Mayor & Co.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Versus M/s Hansa Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Mayor & Co. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest income on fixed deposits forms part of profits and gains of business or profession for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Effect of insertion of clause (baa) in the Explanation to Section 80HHC by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. 1.4.1992.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interest Income as Part of Business Profits:
The primary issue was whether interest income on fixed deposits made by the assessee using surplus funds qualifies as business income under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, engaged in the export of handicrafts, claimed this interest income as part of business profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer, however, categorized this interest as 'income from other sources,' thus excluding it from the deduction calculation.

The Tribunal, relying on the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Isher Dass Mahajan and Sons [2002] 253 ITR 284 (P&H), ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the provisions of Clause (baa) to the Explanation to Section 80HHC did not apply to assessment years prior to 1992-93. The High Court, however, emphasized that interest income from surplus funds, unless directly linked to business activities like securing overdrafts or credit limits, should be treated as 'income from other sources.' The Court cited various judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ravi Ratna Exports (P) Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 443 (Bom) and the Kerala High Court in Abad Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] 253 ITR 319 (Ker), which supported this view.

2. Effect of Clause (baa) in Explanation to Section 80HHC:
The second issue revolved around the impact of the insertion of clause (baa) in the Explanation to Section 80HHC by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991, effective from 1.4.1992. This clause aimed to exclude 90% of certain incomes, including interest, from the profits of the business for the purpose of calculating deductions under Section 80HHC. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind this amendment was to ensure that only the profits directly derived from export activities were eligible for deduction, thereby excluding incomes that did not have a direct nexus with export activities.

The Court referenced the CBDT Circular No. 559 dated 4th May 1990, which clarified that the amendment aimed to rationalize the provisions of Section 80HHC and remove anomalies by substituting 'profits' for 'whole of the income.' The Court also cited the Bombay High Court's interpretation in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bangalore Clothing Co. [2003] 260 ITR 371 (Bom), which emphasized that receipts not directly linked to business operations should be excluded from business profits for deduction purposes.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that interest income from surplus funds, unless directly linked to business operations, should be categorized as 'income from other sources' and not included in business profits for Section 80HHC deductions. The insertion of clause (baa) further clarified that 90% of such incomes should be excluded from business profits for deduction calculations. The Tribunal's decision to allow the interest income as part of business profits was thus erroneous. The appeals were allowed in favor of the revenue, and the questions of law were answered accordingly.