TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard to deduction claimed under section 80IC of the Act on Duty Draw Back referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 and decisions of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Liberty India Vs CIT and M/s Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs CIT and held that these incomes were not derived from business and therefore, were not eligible for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 6. The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that Duty Draw Back is an income arising in regular course of business. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, noted that these incentives are paid by the government under various incentive schemes and are not derived from the eligible business. The source of these receipts is not the industrial unit but incentive schemes of the government. These incentives, therefore, do not qualify for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. Matter is therefore, found covered by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218. 7. After hearing rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. Under Section 80IC, deduction is allowable to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same has already been held to be part of the business income by the Tribunal. Therefore, following the earlier decision in the case of the same assessee, it was held that these receipts are part of the business income and eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that once brokerage on ocean freight is held to be business income, therefore, assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 10(i) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below. 11. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 10.02.2015, we are of the view that brokerage on account of ocean freight is business income as was already held by the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee vide order dated 10.02.2015. Therefore, assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80IC of the Act on said amount. The orders of authorities below are accordingly, set aside and Assessing Officer is directed to grant deduction under section 80IC to the assessee. 12. In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions written back amounting to Rs. 7,23,763/-. The Assessing Officer held that by creating the provision in assessment year 2006-07 and then writing it back in the year 2007-08, the assessee had obtained undue advantage to the extent of Rs. 5,06,632/-. Therefore, addition was confirmed. 15. The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the details of excess provision written back at page 13 of the Paper Book and reiterated the submissions made before authorities below. He has further submitted that there is no provision under section 80IC to allow the deduction @ 30% in this year being the first year of claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 15(i) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below. 16. We have considered rival submissions. The Assessing Officer fond that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB @ 30% in assessment year 2006-07 which was 10th year for such claim. The Assessing Officer further pointed out that by adding this amount during the year under consideration, assessee will get exemption of 100% under section 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, found that assessee had evaded tax on 70% of this i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned order dated 30.10.2014. The assessee has filed grounds of appeal raised before ld. CIT(Appeals) which are also reproduced in the impugned order which disclosed that the assessee has not challenged the computation of income made by Assessing Officer under MAT provision. Therefore, there was no occasion for ld. CIT(Appeals) to have considered whether MAT provisions were correctly carried out or not. It would also show that the assessee when could file appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) on as many as seven grounds of appeal, could have challenged the computation under MAT provisions but assessee choose not to challenge the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to computation under MAT provisions before ld. CIT(Appeals). Thus, the assessee accepted the computation under the MAT provisions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thus, raised ground No. 4 for the first time before the Tribunal without seeking even leave of the Tribunal to raise additional ground of appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee, during the course of arguments admitted that this ground is not arising out of the impugned order of ld. CIT(Appeals). He has, however, submitted that on his oral request, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rates at which the valuation was made, were supplied by the partner of the assessee-firm itself. Once the assessment of the valuation had been made as per the material supplied by the assessee himself, there was no question of challenging the same either on the ground that the same was incorrect or that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to explain the same. The addition was valid." 22. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, it is clear that assessee has not filed any application for admission of additional ground of appeal and no reasons have been explained why no such request was made in accordance with law and what was the reason for not raising this issue before ld. CIT(Appeals). Since this issue is not arising out of the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and assessee has not shown any justification for admission of the additional ground of appeal, therefore, the oral request of ld. counsel for the assessee cannot be accepted at this stage. In the absence of any request in writing for admission of the additional ground of appeal, ld. DR was justified in contending that department would be seriously prejudiced in their contention because....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act on insurance claim received for Rs. 2,50,125/- regarding income from insurance claim. Regarding the income from insurance claim, Assessing Officer referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 597 and disallowed claim of assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the issue directed the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee had received any real income on this account and to restrict disallowance accordingly. Findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) at page 8 & 9 of the appellate order are reproduced as under : "On this issue the reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vallabh Yarns (P) Ltd. 51 DTR 236 wherein it has been held that the assessee had not received any real income on account of insurance claim so exclusion for deduction under section 80IB is not warranted. Reference in this regard may also be made to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 264(Delhi)(HC). The Hon'ble High Court held that miscellaneous income like, sale of import license, interest, insurance claim, w....