TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case, the receipts by way of "Shipping Agency fees" and "hire charges of machinery and installations" have to be reduced in terms of the said clause (baa); and if the said receipts have to be so reduced, whether it is the gross receipts that have to be reduced or it is the net receipts included in the profits, that have to be reduced ? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipts under the head "extraction charges" could be considered as part of the "total turnover" as defined in the said clause (ba), for the purpose of computation of the deduction under section 80 HHC of the Act ? C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest received from the subsidiary companies on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to be netted off from the total interest assessed as income from "Profits and gains of business" while reducing 90% of the interest receipts in accordance with the said clause (baa) in arriving at the "profits of the business"? 4. In so far as the substantial question of law (A) is concerned, we feel that the same has to be divided into two parts :- (i) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the receipts by way of "Shipping Agency fees" and "hire charges of machinery and installations" have to be reduced in terms of the clause (baa) to Section 80 HHC ? (ii) If the aforesaid question of law is to be answered in favour of the Respondent-Revenue and against the Appellant-Assessee, then, whether the reduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machinery and installations will have to be reduced from the profits in terms of the explanation clause (baa) to Section 80 HHC. In short, this part of the substantial question of law will have to be answered in favour of the Respondent-Revenue and against the Appellant-Assessee. 8. In so far as the second part of the substantial question of law (A) is concerned, according to us, this is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsule (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2012) 18 Taxman.com 137 (SC). In fact, this decision was followed by us in the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., Tax Appeal No. 81/2006 decided on 7th May, 2015 and thereafter, in V.M. Salgaoncar & Brother Private Limited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law (C) is concerned, this issue is covered in favour of the Appellant-Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Resources Ltd.Tax Appeal No. 57 of 2016 decided on 16/8/2017 and in the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Tax Appeal No.58 of 2007 decided on 20/7/2019. Accordingly, the substantial question of law (C) is answered in favour of the Appellant-Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue. 12. In so far as the substantial question of law (D) is concerned, we have to again fall back upon the decision of this Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra). In the said decision, this Court has held that in so far as hire of ship/transhipper and hire of barges is concerned, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No. 989/2015 and other connected Appeals decided on 5/2/2016.. Incidentally, three of the connected Appeals i.e. Tax Appeals No. 948/2015, 957/2015 and 978 of 2015 were the Appeals instituted by this very Appellant-Assessee. Accordingly, the substantial question of law (E) is answered in favour of the Appellant- Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue. 15. In so far as the substantial question of law (F) is concerned, the same is again covered in favour of the Appellant-Assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue in the following decisions : (i) T.R.F. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi Civil Appeal No.5293/2003 decided on 9/2....