TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98 respectively. The Tax Case Nos.267 to 276 of 2008 are admitted on the following questions of law:- "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the common head office expenses cannot be apportioned to the various units on the basis of their respective turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 10B, 80I and 80HH? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the processing charges received would not form part of the total turnover, although they are includable in the business profits? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash discount and rebate are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Limited got amalgamated with Hindustan Lever Limited, Mumbai with effect from 15.10.1998. The assessee claimed deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I and 10B. The Assessing Officer apportioned the common administrative expenditure incurred by the Head Office for all the units on proportionate basis. The assessee also claimed deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of each of its units on the ground that the accounts for these units were separately maintained, and therefore common expenditure of the Head Office cannot be apportioned for considering the deduction under chapter VIA. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment apportioning the common expenditure incurred by the Head Office, the assessee went on appeal before the Commissioner of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttained finality. Present Tax Case (Appeal) is filed by the Revenue as against the orders of the Tribunal relating to assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95 , 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. When the same was pointed out to the learned standing counsel, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 248 ITR 432 CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA as well as to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in (2012) 81 CCH 031 PRESTIGE FOODS LIMITED v. CIT, and submitted that the common expenses be apportioned among the various units depending on the turnover. We do not find that the above stated decisions would be of any assistance to the Revenue, particularly the decision of the Apex Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court also affirmed the similar view rendered by this Court in the decision reported in 130 ITR 908 CIT v. MANJUSHREE PLANTATIONS LIMITED. 6. As far as the above stated decision is concerned, the deduction is based on Rule 5. In the absence of any specific provision in the Income Tax Act, and more so in the absence of any such provision, there being no material to show that the expenditure though common were with reference to individual units relatable to the income earned, we do not find any justifiable ground to accept the plea of the Revenue. The assessee had taken the contention that the expenses incurred was for the overall management of the units as well as for providing finance. In the circumstances, the decision of the ....