2013 (7) TMI 632 - HC - Income Tax

Service charges qualify for tax deduction under Section 80-I despite non-ownership. Court rules in favor of appellant.

The High Court held that service charges received by the appellant from the Heavy Water Board were eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the ... Deduction u/s 80I - Service charge - Tribunal held that service charges were not profits and gains derived by the assessee from its industrial manufacturing activities therefore not deductable - Held that:- A plain reading of Section 80-I(1) and 80-I(2) would indicate that the ownership by the assessee of an industrial undertaking from which the assessee derives profits and gains is not a stipulated condition - The only thing that has to be seen is whether the source of the profit or gains is an industrial undertaking - The service charges are directly linked to the quantum of heavy water produced by Kribhco by operating and maintaining the Heavy Water Plant - Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Nature of service charges received from the Heavy Water Board.3. Ownership of the industrial undertaking.4. Nexus between service charges and the industrial undertaking.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The primary issue was whether the service charges received by the appellant from the Heavy Water Board could be considered as profits derived from an industrial undertaking, making them eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had previously rejected the appellant's claim, asserting that the service charges were not profits derived from the appellant's industrial manufacturing activities but were instead income from other sources.2. Nature of Service Charges Received from the Heavy Water Board:The service charges were received by the appellant for operating and maintaining the Heavy Water Plant, owned by the Heavy Water Board, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. The Tribunal concluded that these charges were not profits derived from the appellant's industrial undertaking because the Heavy Water Plant was not owned by the appellant, and the service charges were considered as expenditure in the hands of the Heavy Water Board.3. Ownership of the Industrial Undertaking:The Tribunal held that the ownership of the Heavy Water Plant vested with the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, and not with the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that the service charges were not derived from an industrial undertaking owned by the appellant, thus disqualifying them from being considered under Section 80-I.4. Nexus Between Service Charges and the Industrial Undertaking:The High Court examined whether the service charges had a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking. The Court acknowledged that the service charges were directly linked to the quantum of heavy water produced by the appellant by operating and maintaining the Heavy Water Plant. The Court concluded that there was a direct nexus between the service charges and the industrial undertaking, making the service charges eligible for deduction under Section 80-I.Conclusion:The High Court determined that the ownership of the industrial undertaking was irrelevant for the purposes of Section 80-I. It held that the service charges received by the appellant from the Heavy Water Board were profits derived from an industrial undertaking due to the direct nexus between the service charges and the industrial undertaking. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and answering the question in favor of the assessee.