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>Tribunal Upheld Deductions for Assessee, Remanded Combined Issue to AO</h1> <h3>ACIT, Circle -1 (1), Mumbai Vs. Frigorifico Allana Limited and Vice Versa And Frigerio Conserva Allana Ltd. Versus ITO-1 (1) (3), Mumbai</h3> ACIT, Circle -1 (1), Mumbai Vs. Frigorifico Allana Limited and Vice Versa And Frigerio Conserva Allana Ltd. Versus ITO-1 (1) (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Denial of deduction under Section 80HHC.2. Deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80IB.3. Disallowance under Section 14A.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Deduction under Section 80HHC:Ground Nos 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal and Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal involved the denial of deduction under Section 80HHC. The assessee, a supporting manufacturer, claimed the deduction based on a disclaimer certificate issued by the export house, M/s. Allana Sons Ltd. (ASL). The AO denied the deduction to the assessee, following the denial to ASL due to incurred losses when incentives were excluded from export profits. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction to the assessee, stating that the deduction was independent of the export house's eligibility and that ASL had actually been allowed the deduction. The Revenue appealed, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. 266 ITR 521 (SC), which held that a loss-making export house cannot pass on the deduction benefit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the Bombay High Court had validated the deduction for ASL and quashed the reopening of ASL’s assessment. The Tribunal also referenced the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Shamanur Kallappa & Sons vs. ACIT, supporting the independent entitlement of the supporting manufacturer to the deduction.2. Deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80IB:Ground No.3.1 of the assessee’s appeal addressed the issue of combined deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IB. The assessee contended that the total deductions should not exceed the profits earned, citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT 322 ITR 42. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to ensure that the aggregate deductions under both sections did not exceed the profits, thus partly allowing the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.3. Disallowance under Section 14A:In the appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal contested the CIT(A)’s decision to remand the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 under Section 14A as per Rule 8D to the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, finding no error in the remand for re-adjudication.Summary of Outcomes:- For A.Y. 2000-01, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee and remanded the combined deduction issue under Sections 80HHC and 80IB to the AO.- For subsequent years (A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05), the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the order for A.Y. 2000-01, allowing the assessee’s grounds and dismissing the Revenue’s grounds.- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s remand of the Section 14A disallowance issue to the AO for A.Y. 2004-05.Conclusion:The Tribunal consistently upheld the CIT(A)’s decisions favoring the assessee regarding the Section 80HHC deduction and the combined deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IB, while remanding specific issues for further examination by the AO. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed across all assessment years.
TaxTMI 