TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Chartered Accountant's Certificate (along with enclosures) was duly furnished and filed along with the revised return of income. While computing deduction u/s 80HHC under the normal provisions of the Act, adjustment was made in respect of profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IB. Subsequently, during the course of proceedings u/s 143(3), the assessee vide letter dated 27-03-2006 relying on the decision in the case of Toshica Creations -vs.- ITO (2005) 96 TTJ 651 (Jaipur) had claimed that the deduction u/s 80HHC be allowed from the gross total income without reducing it by deduction available u/s 80IB. The AO did not agree and held that in view of the provisions of Sec.80-IB(13), deduction available u/s 80-IB should be reduced from the profits of the business for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to allow the contention of the assessee and held that the object of Sec.80IA(9) affects allowability of deduction and not computation of deduction. According to him, the aggregate deduction computed under both the sections i.e. Sec.80IA and Sec.80HHC shall not exceed the profit of the eligi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the ld. CIT(A) and uphold AO order. 9. On the other hand, the learn Counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted that the view expressed by the ld.CIT(A) is absolutely correct. According to the learned counsel, the statute wants to give deduction to the Assessee in respect of both the activities, namely in respect of export of goods as well as with respect to activities other than infrastructure development as envisaged u/s 80IB etc. and as the asseesses in all the cases are engaged in the business of export as well as in the eligible business other than infrastructure development as envisaged u/s 80IB etc., the assessee is entitled to claim deductions in respect of export business as well as activities other than infrastructure development activities envisaged u/s 80IB eligible unit. 10. According to the learned Counsel if there is any confusion or any ambiguity in the tax law, benefit thereof should be given to the assessee and the High Court of Karnataka and Bombay had rightly permitted the assesses to claim deductions under both the. Sections. According to him, it is a well settled position of law that in a case where two views are possible, the view which favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc. - (1) to (8) xxx xxx xxx (9) Where any amount of profits 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 profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such eligible business of (undertaking) or enterprise, as the case may be." "80HHC. Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.-(1) Where an Assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this Section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Section, be allowed, In computing the total income of toe assessee, [a deduction to the extent of profits referred to in sub-Section (1B)] derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merchandise: Provided that if the assessee, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, the provisions of section 80-IA(9) come into operation. While accepting the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Revenue, it appears that the Delhi High Court failed to consider the important argument of the Revenue noted in paragraph 38 of its judgment. Moreover, without rejecting the argument of the Revenue that section 80-IA(9) applies at the stage of allowing the deduction and not at the stage of computing the deduction, the Delhi High Court could not have held' that section 80-IA (9) seeks to disturb the method of computing the deduction provided under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A of the Act. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to concur with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Exports [2011] 332 ITR 14. For the same reason, we find it difficult to subscribe to the views expressed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Olam Exports [2011] 332 ITR 40. In the result, we hold that section 80-IA(9) does not affect the computability of deduction under various provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, but it affects the allowability of deductions computed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt which was dismissed on the ground of delay on July 21, 2000 (see [2000] 245 ITR (St.) 71). The decision in J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [1998]229 ITR 123 (MP) was followed by the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Alpine Solvex P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special leave petition against this decision was dismissed by this court on January 12,2001, (see [2001] 247 ITR (St.) 36). This view has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 Bom ; CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (R~); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S.B. Oil Industries P. Ltd [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT v. SKG Engineering P.Ltd. [2005] 119 DL T 673 and CIT v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. [2006] 200 CTR (305). 3. Since the special leave petitions file....