2015 (1) TMI 1305 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partially allowed for AY 2002-03: 80HHC deduction recalculated, export incentives upheld.

Satish Kumar Aggarwal Versus DCIT, Central Circle-21, New Delhi

The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2002-03. The Tribunal directed re-computation of the deduction u/s 80HHC, including ... Computation of the deduction u/s 80 HHC - non-inclusion of sum being foreign exchange fluctuations as part of export turnover - Held that:- Having considered the above contentions we find force in the same, in as much as that foreign exchange fluctuations on realisation of export-bills, forms part of export turn-over, in terms of the judgement of the Apex court in Wood Ward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ). We have gone through the trading account of the export divisions, furnished by the assessee, which clearly shows that such foreign exchange fluctuation pertained to the export-sales of ₹ 26,48,59,379/- adopted by the AO. Thus the AO is directed to make the necessary rectification by including the sum of ₹ 30,01,318/- as a part of export turn-over. The said ground is thus allowed. Not allowing to reduce the indirect cost equivalent to 10% of export incentives and interest - Held that:- In termsin the case of Hero Exports Vs. CIT (2007 (11) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India ) the claim made by the assessee is no longer a debatable issue. In view thereof, the AO is directed to make the necessary rectification in computation of the claim of deduction u/s 80(HHC) of the Act, by reducing the indirect cost by a sum of ₹ 37,03,362/- being 10% of the export incentives and interest income. Loss in trading should be adjusted following the judgment of Apex Court in IPCA Laboratories reported in (2004 (3) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court ). Hence the said ground is rejected. The entire value taken by the A.O. as export incentive for the computation of deduction u/s 80HHC is not correct as per the law, Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to examine the actual import incentive received by the assessee and the same may he considered for the purpose of arriving deduction u/s 80HHC Issues:1. Appeal against order of ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2002-03.2. Modification of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.3. Inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuations in export turnover.4. Reduction of indirect cost by 10% of export incentives and interest.5. Adjustment of trading loss.6. Value of export incentives determination.Issue 1:The appeal was filed against the order of the ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2002-03. The appellant, engaged in the export business of casein, had its income determined at a certain amount with a deduction allowed u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the deduction was restricted through an order u/s 154 of the Act. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) directed re-computation of the deduction u/s 80 HHC by excluding domestic turnover and re-examining export incentives.Issue 2:Regarding the modification of the deduction u/s 80HHC, the Tribunal held that the actions u/s 154 were not maintainable. However, the High Court reversed the relief granted to the appellant. Subsequently, the Tribunal recalled the order to decide the merits raised by the assessee, following the High Court's direction.Issue 3:The contention on including foreign exchange fluctuations in export turnover was raised. The ld CIT(A) rejected the claim stating it was not raised earlier and not subject to rectification. The Tribunal, considering the judgement of the Supreme Court, directed the inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuations in export turnover.Issue 4:The dispute over reducing indirect cost by 10% of export incentives and interest was examined. The ld CIT(A) denied the benefit, stating it was not a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's precedent, directed the reduction of indirect cost by the specified amount.Issue 5:Regarding the adjustment of trading loss, the Tribunal rejected the claim based on the Supreme Court's judgment in a relevant case.Issue 6:The determination of the value of export incentives was challenged. The ld CIT(A) directed re-examination based on relevant provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional dispute raised by the appellant, upholding the ld CIT(A)'s authority in this matter.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with various issues addressed and decided upon by the Tribunal, considering legal precedents and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.