TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the A.O. to reduce 90% of the interest after netting off interest expenses having nexus with interest income. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the apart from expenses of Rs. 1,10,79,552/- already considered by the assessee for proportionate allocation, only auditor's expenses of Rs. 17,27,437/- need to be allocated proportionately and directing the A.O. to rework the indirect expenses for export of trading goods. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer." 3. Assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing of soda ash and edible salt. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 343 ITR 89 (SC). In view of this, order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld. 4. Next issue is with regards to disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 80HHC. Assessing Officer observed that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 89,86,625/- u/s. 80HHC(3)(C)(ii). The deduction u/s. 80HHC(3)(C) (ii) in respect of export of trading goods was to be computed as per formula given below. [Export turnover in respect of export of trading goods] - [Direct + Indirect cost attributable to export of such trading goods]. Indirect cost was defined by Explanation [e] to above subsection as costs, not being direct costs, alloc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowable to the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 80HHC of Rs. 2,05,58,280/-. 4.1 Matter was carried before the first appellate authority, wherein various submissions made on behalf of assessee. Having considered the same, CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer that apart from expenses of Rs. 1,10,79,552/- already considered by assessee for proportionate allocation, only auditor's expenses of Rs. 17,27,437/- need to be allocated proportionately and directed the Assessing Officer to rework the indirect expenses for export of trading goods. It was found that assessee had already taken into account administrative miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 1,10,79,522/- which have been allocated proportionately as indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entirely for soda ash manufacturing. In this background, CIT(A) observed that apart from expenses of Rs. 1,10,79,522/-, auditor's expenses of Rs. 17,27,437/- need to be allocated proportionately which makes total income of Rs. 1,28,06,959/- for allocation. Accordingly, Assessing Officer was directed to rework the indirect expenses for export of trading goods. In view of this, order of the CIT(A), on this issue is upheld. 5. In C.O. No. 268/Ahd/2010, assessee has filed the C.O. on following grounds: "1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and hence the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case and that the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cross Objection. Regarding merit of reopening, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that original return of income filed on 30.10.2001, revised return of income was filed on 27.03.2003, assessment order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 26.03.2004, CIT(A) passed its appellate order on 07.12.2004 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.03.2006. According to ld. Authorized Representative issue of deduction u/s. 80HHC have been examined and adjudicated by Assessing Officer. The original assessment order merged with order of CIT(A), hence re-opening is not justified. Assessing Officer in original assessment order after detailed appraisal/examination of facts, merits and case laws allowed deduction u/s. 80HHC which has been withdrawn in re-assessment or....