ITAT rules on deductions under sections 80IB & 80HHC, upholds foreign travel expense disallowance.

The ITAT allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB on the DEPB amount, rejecting the disallowance made by the CIT(A). The ITAT also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the double deduction claim under sections 80HHC and 80IB, contrary to the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the disallowance of foreign traveling expenses was upheld by the ITAT, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Deduction u/s. 80IB on DEPB amount
2. Double deduction under sections 80HHC and 80IB
3. Disallowance of foreign traveling expenses

Issue 1: Deduction u/s. 80IB on DEPB amount
The appeal was against disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IB on DEPB amount received by the assessee. The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction, citing precedents that DEPB is not income derived from the business eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. However, the assessee argued citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Baby Marine Exports that DEPB is integral to the turnover of a supporting manufacturer. The ITAT, Delhi Benches in Flora Exports vs. ACIT also ruled in favor of the assessee. Ultimately, the ITAT allowed the deduction u/s. 80IB, holding that DEPB received as a supporting manufacturer is eligible for the deduction.

Issue 2: Double deduction under sections 80HHC and 80IB
The AO observed that the assessee claimed double deduction under sections 80HHC and 80IB, which was not permissible under the law. The CIT(A) upheld this observation based on the ITAT Mumbai decision in Leben Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT. However, the assessee relied on the Mumbai High Court's decision in Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which favored the assessee. The ITAT, following the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee, reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that deduction u/s. 80IB would not reduce the total income for calculating deduction u/s. 80HHC.

Issue 3: Disallowance of foreign traveling expenses
The AO disallowed foreign traveling expenses of a specific amount due to lack of supporting bills/vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The ITAT found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the disallowance was justified as there was no supporting evidence for the expenses. Consequently, the ground of appeal related to foreign traveling expenses was dismissed.

In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, permitting the deduction u/s. 80IB on the DEPB amount and rejecting the double deduction claim under sections 80HHC and 80IB. The disallowance of foreign traveling expenses was upheld.

---