Industrial undertaking deduction denied on export incentives and other income lacking direct proximate source connection
ITAT Kolkata remanded the matter regarding expense allocation between eligible and non-eligible units back to AO, directing proper bifurcation with assessee's assistance. Common expenses to be allocated pro-rata based on turnover. Regarding section 80IC deduction, the tribunal upheld AO/CIT(A)'s disallowance of 30% receipts from export incentives and other income, ruling these were not "derived" from industrial undertaking. Following precedents including Cambay Electric Supply, only income with direct proximate source qualifies. However, directed that only net interest should be considered for section 80IC computation purposes.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal are twofold: (1) Whether the allocation of common expenses between the eligible industrial undertaking (Sitarganj unit) and other non-eligible units was correctly disallowed by the authorities, and (2) Whether certain items of income, including export incentives and other indirect income, qualify as income 'derived from' the industrial undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Regarding the first issue of allocation of common expenses, the legal framework involves the proper bifurcation of expenses between eligible and non-eligible units to correctly compute profits eligible for deduction under section 80IC. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee initially did not allocate expenses such as fuel & gas, sitting fees, audit fees, commission to non-executive directors, and excise provisions between the units. Some expenses like miscellaneous expenses, employee expenses, and electricity expenses were also deemed improperly allocated. The AO rejected the assessee's attempted bifurcation and adopted a methodology based on the proportion of sales of each unit to allocate common costs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld this approach, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence or explanation to justify its allocation method. The CIT(A) held the AO's sales-based allocation as reasonable.
The assessee contended that individual accounts for each unit were maintained and that specific expenses such as electricity charges and fuel & gases were separately billed and thus directly allocable. The assessee also argued that the allocation method had been consistently followed in past years without objection. The Tribunal examined the voluminous details submitted by the assessee and found that the bifurcation was not clearly demonstrated in the records. While some expenses could be directly allocated, others legitimately required pro-rata allocation. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to re-examine the expense allocation with the assistance of the assessee, allowing direct allocation where possible and pro-rata allocation based on turnover for common expenses not readily segregable.
On the second issue concerning the eligibility of certain income items for deduction under section 80IC, the legal framework is governed by judicial interpretations of the phrase 'derived from' in the context of industrial undertakings. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction on non-operating income including export incentives, interest income, rent, insurance claims, and sundry balances written off, holding that these were not 'derived from' the eligible industrial undertaking. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Liberty India, Sterling Foods, and others, which distinguish between income directly arising from the industrial undertaking's business activities and ancillary or incidental receipts.
The Tribunal undertook a detailed analysis of the binding Supreme Court decisions that clarify the narrow and strict meaning of 'derived from' under sections 80-I and 80-IC. The Court emphasized that only profits and gains arising directly and substantially from the actual conduct of the industrial undertaking's business qualify for deduction. Ancillary receipts such as export incentives under government schemes, duty drawback, and interest income on deposits are considered incidental or ancillary profits and do not qualify. For instance, in Liberty India, the Court held that duty drawback and DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) benefits are government incentives under customs and excise laws and do not form part of the industrial undertaking's profits for section 80-I purposes. Similarly, in Sterling Foods, the sale proceeds of export entitlements were held not to be derived from the industrial undertaking but from the export promotion scheme, lacking direct nexus with the business. Pandian Chemicals clarified that interest on deposits made as a pre-condition for electricity supply is a step removed from the industrial undertaking's business and thus not 'derived from' it.
The Tribunal also examined the assessee's reliance on earlier ITAT orders for different assessment years, which had accepted similar claims. However, those orders were in the context of jurisdictional challenges under section 263 of the Act, where the ITAT found that the AO's view was plausible and not unsustainable in law. The present appeal arises from an order under section 143(3), requiring an independent examination of the correctness of law application rather than jurisdictional validity. Therefore, the earlier ITAT decisions do not bind the present adjudication.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of income items such as export incentives, rent, insurance claims, sundry balances, and interest income from the deduction under section 80IC, as these were not profits 'derived from' the industrial undertaking. However, the Tribunal directed that only the net interest income should be excluded from the computation of deduction, following the approach in the earlier ITAT order (ITA No. 559/Kol/2018), thereby allowing for adjustment of interest expenses against interest income.
The Tribunal did not press the ground relating to denial of opportunity for hearing via video conferencing, as the assessee's counsel withdrew this ground.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding the issue of allocation of common expenses to the AO for fresh consideration with clear directions to allocate expenses appropriately between eligible and non-eligible units. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the issue of eligibility of indirect income items for deduction under section 80IC, affirming the authorities' reliance on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that only income directly and substantially arising from the industrial undertaking's business qualifies for such deduction.
Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts from the Tribunal's reasoning and binding precedents:
"The expression 'derived from' used in section 80-IC is a narrower concept than the expression 'attributable to'; it includes only those receipts earned from the actual conduct of the business of the industrial undertaking."
"The profits derived by way of such incentives [duty drawback, DEPB] do not fall within the expression 'profits derived from industrial undertaking' in section 80-IB."
"There must be a direct nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. Income which is incidental or a step removed from the industrial undertaking's business does not qualify."
"The duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80-I/80-IA/80-IB."
"The Ld. Assessing Officer's sales-based allocation of common expenses is reasonable in the absence of clear documentary evidence to the contrary, but direct allocation should be made where possible."
"Only the net interest income should be excluded from the computation of deduction under section 80IC, allowing adjustment of interest expenses."
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
