2022 (10) TMI 1105 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT grants appeal, directs re-computation of deduction u/s 80 IB, focusing on 'other income.'

The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and remanding the matter back to the ld. AO for ... Deduction 80IB - claim of interest income & other income - only point raised by the ld. CIT(A) is calculated the other income, but no such other income was pointed out in the calculation of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The claim of the assessee related to section 80IB is restricted by the revenue on determination of other income embedded in the profit of the assessee. Respectfully, we observed the direction of Hon’able Apex Court in the case of Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [2022 (8) TMI 1296 - SC ORDER] held that the interest income is not part of deduction U/s 80IA. CIT(A) had rightly pointed out about the embedded duty drawback value in Export Turn Over which is not separately explained by the assessee in the submission. The claim of interest income & other income should be verified by the ld. AO during hearing. The assessee should get reasonable opportunity to submit the evidence during the hearing.Accordingly, the matter is setting aside to ld. AO consider the terms indicated above - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:1. Interpretation of sec. 194-C for various payments made by the assessee.2. Non-adjudication of certain grounds by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).3. Challenge of the deduction u/s 80 IB by the assessee. Issue 1: Interpretation of sec. 194-C for various payments made by the assessee:The appeal involved the interpretation of sec. 194-C regarding payments made by the assessee to different parties. The grounds raised by the assessee included payments to handling agents, taxi charges, labor payments, and payments to an agent, questioning their applicability under sec. 194-C. The Tribunal considered these grounds but found that the ld. Counsel for the assessee withdrew some grounds during the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal focused on the specific issue related to the deduction u/s 80 IB.Issue 2: Non-adjudication of certain grounds by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals):The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee, which led to an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT, after a detailed analysis, noted that the grounds related to sec. 194-C were withdrawn by the assessee during the appeal proceedings. Only the issue concerning the deduction u/s 80 IB was pursued by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the Senior DR to reach a decision.Issue 3: Challenge of the deduction u/s 80 IB by the assessee:The primary issue in the appeal was the challenge to the deduction u/s 80 IB by the assessee. The assessee, engaged in cotton ginning, pressing, and trading activities, claimed the deduction under sec. 80 IB. The ld. Counsel for the assessee provided detailed submissions and referred to a previous assessment year where the deduction was accepted. However, the revenue authorities rejected the claim for the year under consideration. The Tribunal examined the computation submitted by the assessee and the arguments presented by both sides. The Tribunal referred to a relevant case law and directed the ld. AO to re-compute the 'other income' to determine the eligible income for deduction under sec. 80 IB. The matter was remanded back to the ld. AO for further verification and consideration.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and remanding the matter back to the ld. AO for re-computation in accordance with the observations made during the proceedings.