Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rama Multi Tech Ltd.....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/1751/2005 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1751 of 2005 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus RAMA MULTI TECH LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 04/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 31.03.2005 in ITA No. 376/Ahd/1998 for the Assessment Year 1994-95, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law: “(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the amount of Rs. 21,43,478/- being the coordination service charges credited by the assessee to its Profit and Loss Account by the amount of all direct expenses that has been incurred by the assessee in earning the same for computing deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act?ýý (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to net the interest income of Rs. 3,95,964/- by as much of interest as expended by the assessee in earning the same while computing deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act?” 2. The assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the A.O and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of I.T Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction treating it as ‘other income’. On appeal the CIT (Appeals) dismissed the same. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, by impugned judgment and orders, Tribunal partly allowing the appeal, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit claimed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. (Appeals) dismissed the same. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, by impugned judgment and orders, Tribunal partly allowing the appeal, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit claimed by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 5. The issue involved in the present Tax Appeal is now not res integra in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2012] 343 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it is not the entire amount received by the assessee on sale of DEPB credit but the sale value less the face value of the DEPB that will represent profit on transfer of DEPB credit by the assessee. It is also held that if any quantum of any receipt of the nature mentioned in clause (1) of Explanation (baa) has not been included in the profits of business of an assessee as computed under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’, ninety per cent of such quantum of the receipt cannot be deducted under Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. 6.Mr. Patel, learned advocate on behalf of the revenue is not in a position to dispute the above and is not in a position to show and/or point out any contrary decision. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the revenue and the question posed for consideration before us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of the Honble the Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd (Supra), the question, which is raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the assessee. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd (Supra) it is held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that ninety percent of not the gross rent or gross interest but only the net interest or net rent which had been included in the profits of business of the assessee as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” was to be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC for determining the profits of the business. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. against the appellant – revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Hence, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya (K.J.THAKER, J)