2013 (12) TMI 1405 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows deduction under Section 80HHC, upholds disallowance of consultancy charges

Market Place C/O. M/s. Chhajed Kedia Associates Versus ITO. Mumbai

Market Place C/O. M/s. Chhajed Kedia Associates Versus ITO. Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of deduction under Section 80HHC.2. Disallowance of consultancy charges.3. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80HHC:The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 4,53,970 under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, engaged in the export business, had claimed a deduction based on export incentives, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO argued that since the assessee incurred a loss from trading activities, the proviso to Section 80HHC(3) did not apply, and thus, the deduction could not be granted. The CIT(A) upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court decision in IPCA Laboratories vs DCIT, 266 ITR 251 (SC).Upon appeal, it was argued that the retrospective amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, which inserted the Fifth proviso to Section 80HHC(3), allowed for the set-off of losses against 90% of the export incentives. The Tribunal observed that the total turnover of the assessee was less than Rs. 10 crores and that the Fifth proviso explicitly permitted the set-off of losses against export incentives. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC, amounting to Rs. 4,53,971.2. Disallowance of Consultancy Charges:The assessee claimed consultancy charges of Rs. 7,80,000, which were disallowed by the AO on the grounds that they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that if the primary ground of appeal (regarding Section 80HHC deduction) was allowed, the reassessment proceedings would not hold, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom).The Tribunal, however, noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated due to the claim under Section 80HHC. Since the reassessment led to a reduction in the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC, the reassessment proceedings were valid. Therefore, the AO was justified in examining the consultancy charges. Since the assessee did not press this ground of appeal, the Tribunal rejected the ground concerning the disallowance of consultancy charges.3. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis that the assessee's claim under Section 80HHC led to taxable income escaping assessment. Although the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC, it noted that the reassessment proceedings were valid since the deduction claimed was reduced from Rs. 6,18,416 to Rs. 4,53,971. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were justified, and the AO was entitled to examine other claims, including the consultancy charges.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part. The Tribunal permitted the deduction under Section 80HHC, reversing the lower authorities' orders. However, the disallowance of consultancy charges was upheld, and the reassessment proceedings were deemed valid.