The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versusm/S. Pentair Water (India) Pvt.ltd v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:8Th August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2012 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusM/S. PENTAIR WATER (INDIA) PVT.LTD., ... Appellant ... Respondent Mrs. Asha A. Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Chythanya K.K., Mr. S.N. Joshi and Ms. Archana Pai Bir,Advocates for the respondent. P.C.:- -Coram:A. P. LAVANDE &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:8th August, 2012 Heard Mrs. Asha Dessai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Chythainya K.K.,learned counsel for the respondent. 2. According to learned counsel for the appellant the followingsubstantial questions of law arise in the present appeal: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was justified in holding that the claim of the assessee has to beentertained for allowing relief of +/- 5% as envisaged by furtherproviso clause below section 92C(2) of the IT Act. (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theITAT was justified in holding that the deduction u/s 80-IB/80HHCfor the period July,2003 to March 2004 during which the assesseecompany has claimed deduction u/s. 10B, is an allowable deduction. (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,theITAT was justified in holding that the income arising from sale ofscrap is a part of business and is eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC ofthe IT Act. 3. Having perused the impugned order passed by Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that no fault canbe found with impugned order and in that case no substantialquestion of law is involved in the present appeal. 4. In so far as question (a) is concerned the Income Tax AppellateTribunal has dealt with the same in paragraphs 14 and 15 of theimpugned order. We do not find any infirmity in the findingsrecorded by the Tribunal. 5. In so far as the question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal has dealtwith the same in paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2 of the impugned order andit has held that the revenue has not brought any material on record toshow that the profits on which exemption u/s. 10B has been claimedare same profits on which deduction u/s 80HHC/80-IB is beingclaimed by the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)further held that CIT(A) was not justified in denying deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act on the ground that the claim of the assessee is hitby the provisions of section 80A(4) brought into statute by theFinance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2003,and hence ground No.1(c) raised by the assessee stands allowed andthe ground no.3 in appeal by the revenue stands rejected. We do notfind any legal infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal. 6. In so far as the question (c) is concerned the ITAT has relied uponthe judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of "CIT vs. KarMobiles Ltd." (2011) 333 ITR 478 and has recorded the findings against the Revenue and rightly so. 7. We have found absolutely no merit in the submission of Ms.Dessai that the Tribunal erred in recording the findings against theRevenue on the said questions. 8. In view of the above, in our considered opinion there is nosubstantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Hence,the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. mv U. V. BAKRE, J.