2013 (9) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Remits Case for Section 80 IB Deduction Re-examination

Arvind Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Arvind Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deduction under section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of duty drawback received.2. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deduction under section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of duty drawback received:The primary issue in these appeals is whether the duty drawback receipts qualify for deduction under section 80 IB. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and exporting footwear, claimed deduction under section 80 IB, including duty drawback receipts. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this deduction, arguing that duty drawback is not derived from industrial activity but from the government's export promotion scheme. The AO relied on the judgment in CIT Vs Ritesh Industries (274 ITR 324) to support this view.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218), which held that duty drawback does not qualify for deduction under section 80 IB as it is not derived from industrial activity.The assessee contended that duty drawback receipts subsidize production costs and are integral to export profits. They cited the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT Vs Dharmpal Premchand Ltd (317 ITR 353), which allowed deduction for refunds of excise duty, arguing that the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP against this judgment, indicating its validity.The Tribunal examined various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) and Liberty India. It noted that the key issue is whether duty drawback receipts have a direct nexus with industrial profits or are ancillary profits. The Tribunal observed that in cases where duty drawback receipts are substantial and integral to the business model, they cannot be seen as incidental profits.The Tribunal concluded that the factual matrix must be examined to determine the degree of nexus between duty drawback receipts and industrial profits. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and a speaking order, considering the specific facts of the case. The CIT(A) was also directed to consider the assessee's alternate contention that duty drawback receipts representing refunds of duties should be included in profits eligible for deduction under section 80 IB.2. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The second issue involves the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs 36,000 under section 14A. The assessee did not press this issue beyond stating the facts, leaving it to the Tribunal's discretion. Given the small amount involved, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this matter.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-examination of the duty drawback issue. The CIT(A) is to provide a detailed, speaking order based on the factual matrix and legal principles discussed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examining the direct nexus between duty drawback receipts and industrial profits to determine eligibility for deduction under section 80 IB.