2016 (6) TMI 962 - HC - Income Tax

High Court: Insurance claim for repairs is income from industrial undertaking. Appellant entitled to tax deductions. .

BELL CERAMICS LTD Versus DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT)

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the insurance claim received by the appellant, which was a reimbursement of repair and maintenance ... Deduction u/s. 80-HH and 80I - whether Tribunal erred in holding that insurance claim received by the appellant-assessee is not income derived from the industrial undertaking of the appellant and consequently, the appellant cannot claim deduction under section 80-HH and 80-I ? - Held that:- So far as the issue under consideration is concerned, it is squarely covered by the decision of Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2003 (6) TMI 188 - ITAT DELHI-E ] held Insurance claim was basically a part of repair and maintenance. In fact, it was reimbursement of repair and maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of insurance company. Since repair and maintenance incurred by the assessee on behalf of insurance company constituted a part of business expenditure, so insurance claim obviously constituted income derived from the industrial undertaking. - Decided in favour of the assessee Issues:Challenge to Tribunal's order on deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act based on insurance claim received by the appellant.Analysis:The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the exclusion of the entire receipt, including the income component embedded in the insurance claim, while calculating deductions under sections 80-HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the insurance claim was not income derived from the industrial undertaking, thus affecting the eligibility for deductions. On the other hand, the respondent-revenue argued that the Tribunal's decision to exclude the entire receipt, not just the income component, was legally justified.The facts of the case involved the appellant filing its income tax return for the assessment year 1995-96. The Assessing Officer made certain additions/disallowances, resulting in the determination of the total income of the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied with this decision, both the appellant and the revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order, leading to the Tribunal's decision in question.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel relied on a decision by the ITAT, Delhi Bench E, in the case of Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The ITAT decision emphasized that deductions under section 80-I were allowable on profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking. It clarified that insurance claims, interest from suppliers, miscellaneous receipts, and rent from business profit were integral components of business income and should not be excluded from deductions under section 80-I.Based on the precedent set by the ITAT decision, the High Court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The court held that the insurance claim, being a reimbursement of repair and maintenance expenses incurred by the appellant, constituted income derived from the industrial undertaking. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to exclude the entire receipt was deemed incorrect, and the appellant was entitled to claim deductions under sections 80-HH and 80-I on the income component embedded in the insurance claim.