2019 (3) TMI 474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal to consider the following issues, namely - (i) Deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act (ii) Claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act Deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act 2. The claim of deduction u/s 80HHC was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, but the same was allowed by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority allowed the claim of the assessee by finding that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT [(2004) 266 ITR 521 (SC)] was not applicable to the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that both the supporting manufacturer and the export house have profits and hence the decision in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (c) A copy of letter issued to AO, along with relevant attachments to the effect that the Export House has not availed deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act in respect of Export sales made under `on Account' arrangements. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the audited profits and loss account of the Export house, namely, M/s.Abad Exports Private Limited, it is clear that the Export House had earned profits before tax of Rs. 1,26,22,112. The claim of assessee's deduction u/s 80HHC of the I.T.Act is confined only to sale to Export House, M/s.Abad Exports Private Limited. This is evident from para 11 page 19 of the scrutiny assessment order dated 28.03.2005. The Export House had issued discl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... However if the claim is with respect to individual Quick freezing (IQF), the same cannot be termed to be a manufacture or production as declared in 2012 (2) KLT SN 86 (C.No.79) [CIT v. Choice Trading Corporation Ltd.]. It has to be noticed that for the subject year, after the amendment to Section 10A, mere processing does not entitle a claim under Section 10A But by the proviso added on amendment by substitution, the undertakings which were entitled under the earlier provision would be so entitled even under the new provision for the unexpired period of entitlement as per the earlier provision. Hence in considering such claim necessarily it would have to be examined whether the assessee had claimed and obtained the exemption in the y....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessment Years Treatment by AO From A.Y.1994-95 to AY 1998-1999, as per sec. 10A, stood before the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.1999. Claimed and allowed for initial 5 years. A.Y. 1999-2000 No claim in view of loss as per return and treated as claimed and allowed. A.Y. 2000-2001 No claim in view of loss as per return and treated as claimed and allowed. A.Y. 2001-2002 AO / CIT(A) denied the claim. ITAT allowed. 5.1 Therefore, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee would be entitled to the claim of deduction u/s 10A of the I.T.Act for the unexpired period, i.e., assessment year 2002-2003 in respect of exports to Exports House other than IQF. The quantification of the amount that the assessee is....