TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso ignored the fact that al l the material and relevant facts were admittedly available with the AO at the time of making original assessment and al l the facts were duly considered by AO at that time. As such, the assessment was final and therefore, the re-opening entirelyinval id. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts as well as wrongly and illegally decided the appeal against the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by AO, wherein deduction u/s 80HHC was wrongly recomputed by reducing an amount of Rs.78,82,237/- being deduction allowed u/s 80IB. 4. That the appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs.38,59,365/- made in deductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 80IA(9) of income Tax,1961 states that "where any amount of prof its and gains of an (undertaking) or of an enterprise in the case of an assessee is claimed and allowed under this Section for any assessment year, deduction to the extent of such prof its and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this chapter under the head "C-Deduction in respect of certain income", and shall in no case exceed the prof its and gains of such eligible business of (undertaking) or enterprise, as the case may be." In view of this provision of the Income- tax Act,1961 the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IB amounting toRs.78,82,237/- was required to be deducted from prof its and gains of business while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee contended that the CIT(A), erred in upholding the order passed by the AO whereby deduction u/s 80HHC was wrongly computed by reducing an amount of Rs.78,82,237/- being deduction allowed u/s 80IB of the Act. The AO computed the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, after reducing the deduction allowed u/s 80IB of the Act, in the light of the provisions of Section 80IA(9) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO.The relevant findings of the CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder : "6. I have considered the issue under appeal and it is seen that apart from Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V Sharon Vencers (P) Ltd. , Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Great Easter Exports Vs. CIT 332 ITR 14 and Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to the Special Bench decision in the case of CIT V Rogini Garments (2007) 111 TTJ (Cehnnai ) (SB) 274, and another decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT V Hindustan Mint & Agro Products P.Ltd. (2009) 123 TTJ (Del ) (SB) 577 adjudicated the issue in favour of the revenue. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Court held that restriction u/s 80IA(9) is not only that total deduction should not exceed prof its and gains, there is further restriction that deduction allowed u/s 80IA or Section 80IB will be a bar to claim deduction under any other provisions of the chapter. The relevant and operative part of the decision is reproduced hereunder : "7. Referring to question No. ( iv) , the claim of the assessee is that the assessee was entitled to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stt. CIT V Rogini Garments (2007) 111 TTJ (Chennai) (SB) 274 : (2007) 294 ITR 15 (Chennai) (SB) (AT) , which is on the same issue. In the case of Rogini Garments, the Special Bench held that the restrictive provisions of s. 80IA(9) had to be given effect to, and the definition of business prof it as contained in cl . (baa) below s. 80HHC(4C) has to be construed in light of these restrictions. The Special Bench held that relief under s. 80IA should be deducted from the prof its and gains of the business before computing the relief under s. 80HHC. The ld. First appel late authority had decided the issue against the assessee by discussing the issue in dispute with the support of various judgments mentioned in the impugned orders at paras 3.6 a....