TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arately. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had maintained separate books of accounts and employed separate staff and therefore each unit was separate undertaking eligible for deduction under section 8OHHC. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that section 8OHHC is a beneficial provision and should be construed liberally. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in excluding export turnover and total turnover of 100% Pril EOU from export turnover and total turnover of the company, while computing deduction under section 8OHHC. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration while deciding this appeal. 3. Ground No.1 to 3 are stated to be raised on an issue according to which a question has been raised that whether deduction under section 80 HHC should be allowed on the company as a whole as against each business unit separately. This ground is stated to be covered originally by the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2000- 01, wherein this issue has been dealt vide para 8 to 11. It has been held by the Tribunal that assessee is entitled to allowability of deduction u/s. 80 HHC qua business and not qua assessee, when assessee having maintained separate books of accounts for different business. 3.1 On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. D.R that while computi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if restored back to the file of AO, the AO may be directed to recompute the deduction by taking into account the law as existed on the date of computing the deduction. 4.2 We have heard both the parties and after careful consideration of the facts and law, we restore this issue to the file of AO for recomputing the deduction after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and in accordance with the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and any other decision available on the subject. We direct accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Apropos ground No.5,6 & 7, it was submission of Ld. A.R that directions may be issued to the AO to recompute the deduction under section 80 HHC by redu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. 330 ITR 62(Bom), wherein it has been held that insurance claim on stock in trade is neither independent income nor receipt of a nature similar to brokerage, commission, interest, rent or charges and insurance claim being part of business income is not liable to be reduced to the extent of 90% while calculating eligible profits under section 80 HHC. It is also the case of the assessee that in its own cases also the Tribunal has held that insurance claim received by the assesee being part of business income is not liable to be reduced to the extent of 90% and reference in this regard was made to the following decisions: - The appellant inter- alia, relies on Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decision in its own case for the A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is directly on the issue. Therefore, we allow this ground of the assessee. 7. Apropos ground No.9, it was claimed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions : a) CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd. 330 ITR 62 (Bom) b) Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. DCIT 94 TTJ 227 (Del) (Related to 80 IA) c) Alfa Laval India Ltd. vs. DCIT , 266 ITR 418 (Bom) d) Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. vs. ACIT 85 TTJ 20 / 91 ITD 280 (Hyd) (Related to 80I) A VAT refund of Rs. 12,07,330/- was received by the assessee vide letter dated 21/12/2006. It was the submission of the assessee that the said incomes are on revenue account and routed through profit and loss account. The expenses on these accounts have earlier inflated the cost of purchases / productio....