Tribunal grants relief on reclassification, depreciation, and deductions; rules against retrospective interest.

The appeal was partly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed relief on various grounds, including reclassification of 'Plant & Machinery' as furniture, allowing depreciation on non-compete fees, including sales tax refund in business profits for deduction U/s. 80HHC, and including export turnover of EOU unit for the same deduction. The Tribunal also ruled against levying statutory interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D retrospectively for the relevant assessment year.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reclassification of 'Plant & Machinery' as Furniture.
2. Depreciation on 'Intangible Asset' being non-compete fees.
3. Reducing Sales tax refund from business profits while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC.
4. Reducing interest income from business profits while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC.
5. Set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier AYs of TVL.
6. Reducing from the Profit eligible for deduction U/s. 80-HHC a sum of Rs. 6,40,80,683/- being deduction U/s. 80-IA.
7. Inclusion of export turnover of EOU unit in the export turnover of the assessee while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC.
8. Levy of statutory interest U/s. 234B, 234C, and 234D.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reclassification of 'Plant & Machinery' as Furniture:
The assessee claimed depreciation on items like stools, tables, stainless steel racks, etc., as 'Plant & Machinery'. The AO reclassified these as 'furniture', applying a lower depreciation rate. The Tribunal applied the 'functional test' from the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT v. Parke Davis (India) Ltd. and Karnataka High Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v. CIT, concluding that if the items are necessary for production, they should be classified as 'Plant & Machinery'. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

2. Depreciation on 'Intangible Asset' being non-compete fees:
The assessee claimed depreciation on non-compete fees paid to Dr. K K Rao, acquired through amalgamation. The revenue argued that non-compete fees are not depreciable. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Techno Shares & Stock Ltd. v. CIT, holding that non-compete fees are 'intangible assets' eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

3. Reducing Sales tax refund from business profits while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC:
The assessee included sales tax refund in 'profits of the business' for computing deduction U/s. 80HHC. The AO excluded it, citing it as non-operational income. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee in earlier years and directed the AO to allow the inclusion of the sales tax refund in business profits for computing the deduction.

4. Reducing interest income from business profits while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC:
The assessee sought to net off interest paid against interest earned. The Tribunal, referring to the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT v. Asian Star Co Ltd, held that gross interest, not net interest, should be considered for computing deduction U/s. 80HHC. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

5. Set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier AYs of TVL:
The assessee did not press this ground. Consequently, it was dismissed as not pressed.

6. Reducing from the Profit eligible for deduction U/s. 80-HHC a sum of Rs. 6,40,80,683/- being deduction U/s. 80-IA:
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant relief based on the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which held that deductions U/s. 80-IA should not be excluded from profits of the business while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC.

7. Inclusion of export turnover of EOU unit in the export turnover of the assessee while computing deduction U/s. 80HHC:
The assessee argued for including the export turnover of the EOU unit in the export turnover of the business for computing deduction U/s. 80HHC, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the principle of parity, directing the AO to include the export turnover of the EOU unit in the export turnover of the business for computing the deduction.

8. Levy of statutory interest U/s. 234B, 234C, and 234D:
The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in ITO v. Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd, holding that Section 234D, being substantive, applies prospectively from AY 2004-05. Consequently, interest U/s. 234D could not be charged for AY 2001-02. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for consequential relief on interest U/s. 234B and 234C.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing relief on several grounds based on established legal principles and jurisdictional High Court decisions.

---