THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY - III, MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR CO. LTD. ,MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/200/2009HC Bombay18 March 2010Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR42 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that net interest on fixed deposits should be considered for the purpose of working out the deduction under Section 80HHC, rather than gross interest. The Court reasoned that while Section 80HHC is an incentive provision, its interpretation must adhere to the legislative intent. Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC clearly mandates the exclusion of 90% of specific receipts, including interest, from the profits of the business. The Court found that Parliament had legislated on both the nature and extent of exclusion, and it was not open for the Court to rewrite the provision or allow netting of interest income against interest expenses beyond what was explicitly permitted. The Court distinguished the Tribunal's reasoning in Lalsons Enterprises, stating that the Tribunal had transgressed the limitations of judicial power by effectively legislating a deduction for expenses not allowed by Parliament. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Assessment Year 2003-04. The assessee, M/s. Asian Star Co. Ltd., engaged in exporting cut and polished diamonds, claimed a deduction of Rs. 13.22 crores under Section 80HHC. The assessee had debited Rs. 21.46 crores as interest paid/payable and stated this was net of Rs. 3.25 crores interest received on fixed deposits. The Assessing Officer proposed recomputing the deduction by excluding 90% of the interest received. The assessee contended a direct nexus existed between borrowed funds and fixed deposits maintained as margin money. The CIT(Appeals) allowed netting of interest income and expenses, a view upheld by the ITAT, which followed its decision in Lalsons Enterprises.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that net interest on fixed deposits in banks received by the Assessee Company should be considered for the purpose of working out the deduction under Section 80HHC, and not the gross interest? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Section 80HHC should be interpreted purposively, and the 90% reduction should apply to the net profit after considering expenditure incurred for earning the receipts. The assessee argued that there was a direct nexus between borrowed funds and fixed deposits, and therefore, interest income and expenses should be netted. Revenue's contention: For computing profits under Section 80HHC, 90% of interest receipts must be reduced from business profits, and these receipts are gross receipts. Therefore, gross interest receipts cannot be netted against expenditure incurred for earning them. The Revenue relied on Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, which mandates exclusion of 90% of interest receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 260A,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.200 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax City­III, Room No.607, 6th Floor,  Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai­400 020. ...Appellant.                         Vs. M/s.Asian Star Co.Ltd., 114­C, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai­400 021. ...Respondent.                                 .... Mr.  Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.J.B. Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate with Dr.K.Shivram i/b. Mr.A.R.  Singh and Mr.P.S.Savla  for the Respondent.                                 .....                                 CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND                 J.P.DEVADHAR,  JJ.                                               March 18/19, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J) : The appeal by the Revenue under Section  260A of the Income  Tax  Act,  1961 raises  a  question  of  law  as regards  the interpretation of the provisions of Section 80HHC.  The question of law has been formulated as follows in the Memo of Appeal : “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble  Tribunal was correct in holding   that   net   interest   on   fixed   deposits   in   banks received by the Assessee Company should be considered for the purpose of working out the deduction u/s.80HHC and not the gross interest?” CNR No : HCBM020174602008 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 The appeal was admitted on the aforesaid question. The facts:

2.

The assessee in the present case carries on the business of the export of cut and polished diamonds.  A return of income for Assessment   Year   2003­04   was   filed   on   28   November   2003, declaring a total income of Rs. 13.91 crores,   after claiming a deduction of Rs. 13.22  crores under Section 80HHC.  The return was initially processed under Section  143(1), after which the case was selected for scrutiny under Section  143(2) by the issuance of a notice.   The assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 21.46 crores as interest paid/payable to the profit and loss account. The assessee, however, stated that the interest charged to the profit and loss account was net of interest received in the amount of Rs. 3.25 crores.   The assessee was called upon to explain as to why the deduction under Section   80HHC should not be recomputed by excluding ninety per cent of the interest received in the amount of Rs. 3.25 crores.   By its explanation, the assessee submitted that during the year, it received interest on fixed deposits.  The assessee stated that it had borrowed monies in order to fulfill its working Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 capital requirements and the Bank had called upon it to maintain a fixed deposit as margin money against the loans.     The assessee consequently contended that there was a direct nexus between the deposits kept in the Bank and the amounts borrowed.

3.

The   Assessing   Officer,   while   passing   an   order   of assessment dated 30 January 2006, found that the explanation of the   assessee   could   not   be   accepted   since   a   plain   reading   of Explanation baa to Section 80HHE would suggest that ninety per cent  of the receipts on account of brokerage, commission, interest, rent,   charges   or   receipts   of   a   similar   nature   were   liable   to  be excluded while computing the profits of the business.  In appeal, the CIT (Appeals) held by his order dated 17 November 2006 that from   the   Bank   and   fund   flow   statements,   the   assessee     has established a direct nexus between interest bearing fixed deposits and the ‘interest charging’ borrowed funds.     The CIT (Appeals) directed   the   Assessing   Officer   to   allow   the   netting   of   interest income and interest expenses.  The view of the CIT (Appeals) was confirmed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 11 March 2008. The Tribunal  held that the finding of the Appellate Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Authority   was   based   on   the   existence   of   a   nexus   between borrowed funds and   fixed deposits.     The Tribunal followed its decision in the case of Lalsons Enterprises.1 The question :

4.

The question of law which has been raised in the appeal by the Revenue relates to whether   netting of interest can   be allowed for the purpose of working out a deduction under Section 80HHC. The contention of the Revenue is that for computing the profits   and   gains   of   the   business   for   the   purposes   of   Section 80HHC, ninety per cent  of the receipts by way of interest has to be reduced from the profits and gains of business or profession and the   receipts   that   have   to   be   reduced   are   the   gross   receipts. Consequently,   it   is   the   submission   of   the   Revenue   that     gross receipts by way of interest cannot be netted against  expenditure which is laid out  for the earning of those receipts.  On the other hand,  the contention of the assessee is that Section 80HHC must have a purposive interpretation and the reduction that is to be applied   of  ninety   per   cent  of   the   receipts,   must   relate   to   the 1 (2004) 89 ITD 25 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 inclusion   of   receipts   in   the   profits   and   gains   of   business   or profession which is comprised both of  receipts and the expenditure which is incurred directly for the purpose of earning  the receipts. Section 80HHC:

5.

Sub­section (1) of Section 80HHC provides that where an assessee, being an Indian Company or a person residing in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of goods or merchandise to which the section applies, there shall be allowed in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction to the extent   of   profit   referred   to   in   sub­section   (1B)  derived  by   the assessee from the export of such goods.  Sub­section (1B) stipulates the   extent   of   the   permissible   deduction   and  the   period   during which the deduction could be claimed.  Sub­section (3) lays down a   formula   with   reference   to   which   the   profits   derived   by   the assessee from export have to be computed.   In the present case, clause (a) of sub­section (3) is of relevance and it provides as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub­section (1), ­ (a)   where   the   export   out   of   India   is   of   goods   or merchandise manufactured or  processed by the assessee, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 the profits derived from such export shall be the amount which   bears   to   the   profits   of   the   business,   the   same proportion   as   the   export   turnover   in   respect   of   such goods bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.” The central focus of this appeal relates to the interpretation that is to be placed on the provisions of clause (baa) of the Explanation. Clause baa provides as follows: “(baa) “profits of the business” means the profits of the business  as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” as reduced by ­ (1)ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of section 28 or of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges   or any other receipt  of  a similar nature included in such profits; and (2)the profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situate outside India.” Hence, Clause (a) of sub­section (3) is applicable to an assessee whose business consists of the export out of India of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by the assessee.   In the case of such an assessee, the profits derived from such export is the amount   which   bears   to   the   profits   of   the   business,   the   same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such goods bears to Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.  The expression “profits of the business” which has been used in clause (a) of sub­section (3) is defined in clause baa of the Explanation. For the purposes of clause baa, profits of the business have to be first computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.   That computation must necessarily be in accordance with the provisions of Sections 28 to 44D of the Act.  Once such a computation has been arrived at, clause baa requires a reduction to be carried out.  The reduction is to be of (i) Ninety per cent of (a) the export incentive referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of Section 28 or (b) any receipt by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits; and (ii) Profits of a branch, office, warehouse   or   any   other   establishment   of   the   assessee   situated outside   India.     The   issue   which   falls   for   determination   in   the present case relates to the reduction factor of ninety per cent  that is to be applied in respect of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature   included   in   such   profits.     As   noticed   earlier,   it   is   the contention of the Revenue that the reduction factor of ninety per Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 cent  must be applied to the gross receipts, independent of any expenditure that may be incurred in the earning of those receipts, while according to the assessee, the use of the words “included in such profits” must, in particular, result in the conclusion that the reduction factor cannot be applied in isolation only to the gross receipts without reference to the expenditure laid out directly for the purpose of earning those receipts.  It is in this background that it would be necessary now to advert to the rival submissions. Submissions :

6.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted firstly that Explanation baa seeks to exclude ninety per cent  of : (i) Any sum by way of export incentives referred to in clause (iiia) to (iiie) of Section 28; (ii) Receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or other similar receipts; and the Profits of any   branch,   office,   or   warehouse.     The   submission   is   that Parliament   has   used   three   different   expressions,   namely,   “any sums”, “receipts” and “profits”.  In so far as  receipts are concerned, it has been urged that  ninety per cent  of whatever receipts are received of the description mentioned in the explanation must be Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 excluded.  Secondly, it has been submitted that Section 80HHC is a statutory incentive provided to exporters  and the object  of the provision is not to determine real income.  The underlying object of Explanation baa was to exclude receipts which do not have a nexus with  export turnover and ninety per cent of all such receipts would have to be excluded in computing the deduction.   Thirdly, reliance was placed on a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 19 December 1991 in order to contend that no netting of receipts with the expenditure laid out in   earning the receipts is permissible since in mandating that a reduction of ninety per cent shall be applied, Parliament has already taken into account, the element of common expenses that may be incurred by the assessee. In other words, the submission was that while the entire receipts on account of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or other similar receipts would have to be excluded since they do not bear a nexus with export turnover, nonetheless the Legislature has taken notice of the fact that the assessee would have incurred certain   expenses   towards   those   receipts   and   had   consequently applied a reduction factor of  ninety per cent. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020

7.

The appeal before the Court has been placed for hearing together with a batch of appeals where similar issues arise.  Since common issues of law arise in this batch of appeals, we have, while hearing the arguments of the Revenue in the present appeal, also heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessees in the entire batch on the question of interpretation.   Submissions have been urged before the Court by Mr.Andhyarujina, Mr.Shivram, Mr.Irani and Mr.Nilesh Joshi.  Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee submitted that (i) The words “any receipts” denote the nature and not the quantum  of  the receipt;  (ii)  The expression,  therefore, requires the nature of the receipts to be examined; (iii) Explanation baa refers to any   receipts of a similar nature “included in such profits”. The words “such profits” would mean  profits and gains of business or profession   computed under Sections 28 to 44D; (iv) Profits can only be arrived at after the deduction of expenditure from income and the net effect thereof would constitute profits; (v) Explanation   baa   does   not   use   the   expression   “gross   or   net”. However, having regard to the purpose and object of the provision and the nature of the language used in the explanation, ninety per cent of the receipts that is required to be excluded would have to Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 be computed with reference to the inclusion of such receipts in the profits and gains of business which in turn involves both the credit and the debit sides of the profit and loss account; (vi) For the purposes of Explanation baa, income from other sources would not come within the purview of the explanation;  Only business income would have to be considered and interest in the nature of business income would have to be taken into consideration; (vii) Receipts by way   of   interest   in   Explanation   baa   denotes   the   nature   of   the receipts and inclusion in  ‘such profits’ would denote the quantum of the receipts; (viii) The words which have been used by the legislature suggest what is included in the total income or what has gone into the computation of the total income.  Consequently, both the debit and the credit sides of the profit and loss account would have to be considered; (ix) The words “such profits” can only mean such profits as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act; (x) The words “receipt” and “income” in Explanation baa are interchangeably used and consequently, receipts would have to be read as income; (xi) The correct interpretation would be to take into consideration netting and exclude all expenses which have a direct nexus with the earning of the income; (xii) The provision Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 being   an   incentive   provision   under   Chapter   VIA,   it   must   be beneficially construed in order to encourage exports; (xiii) The word   “profits”   would   denote   profits   in   a   commercial   sense. Another perspective of the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the assessee is that the object of the exclusion contained in Explanation baa is to sequester certain non­operational income which   does   not   bear   a   direct   nexus   with   export   income. Consequently, the sequestration or exclusion cannot be confined only to the credit side of the profit and loss account, but must extend equally to the debit side subject to the rider that a clear nexus has to be established.  The Revenue, it has been urged, seeks to exclude non­operational income on the one hand, because it has no nexus with the export turnover while on the other hand,   it seeks to depress profits by including expenditure which has been incurred for those very items.  This, it has been submitted,  would lead to a consequence which   could not have been intended by Parliament having regard to the beneficial object underlying the provision. The rationale underlying the exclusion : Uploaded on - 21/08/2020

8.

Sub­section (3) of Section 80HHC was inserted by the Finance Act of 1991, with effect from 1st April 1992. The principal reason underlying the adoption of the formula in sub­section (3) of Section 80HHC was to disallow a part of the concession when the entire deduction claimed could not be regarded as being derived from export.   Section 80HHC had to be amended several times since the formula had resulted in a distorted figure of export profits where receipts such as interest, rent, commission and brokerage which   did   not   have   a   direct   nexus   with   export   turnover   were included in the profit and loss account and resultantly became a subject   of   deduction.       By   the   amendment,   the   position   that emerged was that receipts which do not have any element of or nexus   with   export   turnover   would   not   become   eligible   for deduction merely because they form part of the profit and loss account.  This aspect of the history underlying Section 80HHC, has been   elaborated   upon   in   the   judgment   of   Hon’ble   Shri   Justice Uploaded on - 21/08/2020

9.

Explanation baa has to be read in the context of this background   underlying   the   exclusion   of   certain   constituent elements of the profit  and loss  account from  the eligibility for deduction      under   Section   80HHC.     What   Explanation   baa postulates  is that, in  computing  the profits  of  business  for the purposes of Section 80HHC, the profits of business have to be first computed   under   the   head   profits   and   gains   of   business   or profession, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 28 to 44D.   Once that exercise is completed, those profits have to be reduced   to   the   extent   provided   by   clauses   (1)   and   (2)   of Explanation   baa.     Clause   (1)   to   the   explanation   requires   the application of the ninety per cent deduction to two categories.  The first category consists of export incentives which are referred to in clauses (iiia) to (iiie) of Section 28. The second category consists of receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipts of a similar nature included in such profits. The importance of the second category lies in the fact that such receipts by way  of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or other receipts of a similar nature, though included in the profits Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 and gains of business or profession, do not bear a nexus with the export turnover.   Consequently, though they are included in the computation of profits and gains of business or profession, ninety per cent  of such receipts have to be excluded in computing the profits of business for the purposes of Section 80HHC.

10.

The reason for the exclusion is borne out by a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 19 December 1991. The circular issued by the Board noted that the existing formula often presented a distorted figure of export profits when receipts like interest, commission etc. which did not have an element of turnover   were   included   in   the   profit   and   loss   account. Consequently, a clarification had been introduced by which the profits of business for the purposes of Section 80HHC would not include   receipts     of   a   similar   nature.     However,   as   some expenditure might have been incurred in earning these incomes which   in   the   generality   of   cases   would   be   a   part   of   common expenditure, an ad­hoc deduction of ten per cent from such income was provided to account for these expenses. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020

11.

Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 As a result, the processing charges would be includible in total turnover in the formula under Section 80HHC(3).  For the purpose of this appeal, it would be appropriate to formulate the principles which emerge from the decision in Ravindranathan Nair.  These may be summarized as follows: ­(i) Section 80HHC is not a charging section, but a provision by   way   of   an   incentive   and   its   object   is   not   to   ascertain   real income; ­(ii) The   expression   “derived   from”   in   Sub­section   (1)   of Section 80HHC is narrower than the expression “attributable to” and consequently, it is only profits  derived from export which can become   the   basis   for   working   out   the   formula   in   Section 80HHC(3); ­(iii) As a result of the amendment brought about from 1st April 1992 by the Finance Act of 1991, the expression “profits of the business” stands defined to mean profits of the business as computed under the head profits and gains of the business under Sections 28 to 44D; ­(iv) Before allowing a deduction under Sub­section (3) of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Section 80HHC, the gross total income of an assessee, being profits from business, has to be arrived at in terms of clause baa of the explanation.   Business profits have to be calculated in terms of Sections 28 to 44D alone; ­(v) The deduction has to be from the profits as understood in the commercial sense; ­(vi) Under clause (1) of Explanation baa, ninety per cent of any amount referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie)   of   Section   28   or   of   any   receipts   by   way   of   brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits has to be reduced.  The expression “included in such profits” indicates that such item which forms a subject matter of the reduction also forms a part of gross total income being business profits; ­(vii) Incentive profits and items like rent, commission, interest and brokerage, though they form a part of the gross total income, have to be excluded since they do not possess any nexus with export turnover.    The inclusion of such items in profits  of the business would result in a distortion of the figure of  export profits; ­(viii) In   the   formula,   there   exist   four   variables   namely, Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 business profits, export turnover, total turnover and ninety per cent of the sums referred to in Explanation baa.  In the computation of the deduction under Section  80HHC,  all the four variables  are required to be taken into account; ­(ix) Section   80HHC(3)   secures   profits   derived   from   the export of eligible goods.   Every receipt is not income and every income   would   not   necessarily   include   the   element   of   export turnover; ­(x) By Explanation baa ninety per cent of incentive profits or receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipts of like nature included in business profits have to be deducted from business profits as computed under Sections 28 to 44D; ­(xi) In other words, receipts which result in an independent income which has no nexus with export, are required to be reduced from business profits under Explanation baa; ­(xii) Though   receipts   by   way   of   brokerage,   commission, interest, rent, charges or any receipts of a similar nature form part of the gross total income, yet for the purpose of working out the formula and in order to avoid a distortion in arriving at export Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 profits, Explanation baa has been inserted; ­(xiii) As a result of the insertion of Explanation baa  incentive profits and receipts which result in “independent income” have to be excluded from the gross total income to the extent of ninety per cent because such receipts have no nexus with the export turnover.

13.

In  Lakshmi Machine Works  (supra),   the issue before the Supreme Court was whether excise duty and sales tax were included in the total turnover for the purpose of working out the formula contained in Section 80HHC(3).  The Supreme Court held that the object of the legislature in enacting Section 80HHC was to confer   benefit   on   profits   accruing   with   reference   to   export turnover.   The Supreme Court observed that “commission, rent, interest etc. did not involve any turnover” and “therefore, ninety per cent of such commission, interest etc. was excluded from the profits derived from the export.”  Just as  interest, commission etc. did not emanate from export turnover, so also excise duty and sales tax had to be excluded. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 The resultant position in law :

14.

The deduction under Section 80HHC is available to an assessee engaged in the export of goods or merchandise outside India to the extent of the profits specified in sub­section (1B) of the provision.     Clause   (a)   of   Sub­section   (3)   of   Section   80HHC provides that where the exported goods are manufactured by the assessee,   the   deduction   under   sub­section   (1)   would   be   in accordance with the formula stated therein.   The formula is that the profits derived from such export shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such goods bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.   Explanation baa was inserted by the Finance Act  of 1991 with retrospective effect from 1st April 1987. Under Explanation baa, the expression “profits of the business” means the profits of the business as computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” as reduced by ninety per cent of  (a) Any sums referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of Section 28; or (b) Any receipts by way of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits.   The profits of any branch,   office,   warehouse   or   any   other   establishment   of   the assessee   situated   outside   India   have   also   to   be   reduced.   Since receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or other similar receipts have no nexus with the export activity, the legislature   thought   it   fit,   for   the   purpose   of   deduction   under Section   80HHC   to   exclude   such   items   from     business   profits. Parliament   was,   however,   conscious   of   the   fact     that   the expenditure incurred in earning the items which were liable to be excluded   had   already   gone   into   the   computation   of   business profits.     This   was   because   the   computation   of   business   profits under Chapter IV is made by amalgamating the receipts as well as the expenditure incurred in carrying on the business.   Since the expenditure incurred in earning the income by way of interest, brokerage, commission, rent, charges or other similar receipts had also   gone   into   the   computation   of   business   profits,   Parliament thought   it   fit   to   exclude   only   ninety   per   cent   of   the   receipts received by the assessee in order to ensure that the expenditure which is incurred by the assessee in earning the receipts which has Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 gone into the computation of the business profits is taken care of.

15.

The reason why Parliament confined the reduction factor to ninety per cent of the receipts is stated in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill of 1991. In so far as it is relevant, the Memorandum states thus: “The existing formula may also give a distorted figure   of   export   profits   when   receipts   like   interest, commission,   etc.,   which   do   not   have   an   element   of turnover are included in the profit and loss account. It is, therefore, proposed to clarify that “profits of the business” for the purpose of section 80HHC will not include receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature.     As   some   expenditure   might   be   incurred   in earning these incomes, which in the generality of cases is part of common expenses, it is proposed to provide ad hoc 10 per cent deduction from such incomes to account for these expenses.” Parliament,   therefore,   confined   the   reduction   to   the   extent   of ninety per cent of the income earned through such receipts since it was cognizant of the fact that the assessee would have incurred some expenditure in earning those incomes.  Parliament provided an ad­hoc deduction of ten per cent from such incomes to account for the expenses incurred in earning the receipts.  The explanatory Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 statement which is contained in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill of 1991 has also been reflected in the explanatory circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 19 December 1991 (Circular No.621).  The distortion of the profits that would take place by excluding the receipts received by the assessee   which  were   unrelated  to  export   turnover   and  not  the expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning those receipts was factored in by Parliament by excluding only ninety per cent of the receipts received by the assessee.  In a given case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the receipts, which is to be excluded, may be more than ten per cent or less than ten per cent. Parliament, however, thought it fit to adopt a uniform formula envisaging a reduction of ninety per cent to make due allowance for   the   expenditure   which   would   have   been   incurred   by   the assessee in earning the receipts.  Parliament regarded the element of expenditure computed at ten per cent of the receipts to be a reasonable  parameter of what would have been expended by the assessee.     It   is   in   this   background   that   in   Explanation   baa, Parliament has thought it fit to exclude ninety per cent of the receipts received by the assessee which have no nexus with the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 export activity.  Ordinarily, the sums, receipts and profits set out in clause baa would have been required to be excluded completely from the profits of the business, being unrelated to export turnover. Yet, since the expenditure incurred in earning such sums, receipts and profits has already been taken into account on the debit side, in computing profits of the business, it is only ninety per cent of these sums, receipts and profits referred to therein which would have to be excluded from the profits of the business in order to off set   the   expenditure   taken   into   account   while   computing   the business profits.   In other words, the distortion in the profits of business that would take place by excluding only the sums, receipts and profits from the credit side, but not the expenditure from the debit side, is off set by excluding only ninety per cent of such sums, receipts   and   profits   to   represent   the   expenditure   incurred   on earning them.     As stated earlier, it may well be that the actual expenditure   incurred   in   a   case   may   be   more   or   less   than   the statutory factor of ten per cent enacted by Parliament, but in order to simplify the application of the law, Parliament treated a uniform expenditure computed at ten per cent to be applicable in order to ensure that there is no distortion of profits by exclusion of income Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 which is not relatable to export profits. Distributors Baroda : 16. eighty per cent.       The Supreme Court observed that ‘income by way of dividend from a domestic company included in the gross total income’ would be the income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that is after deducting interest on monies borrowed for earning such income.  While interpreting the words “included in the gross total income” and, emphasizing   words “a deduction from such income   by way of dividend”, the Supreme Court held thus: 4 (1985) 155 ITR 120 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 “Now,   when   in   computing   the   total   income   of   the assessee, a deduction has to be made from “such income by way of dividends, it is elementary that “such income by way of dividends” from which deduction has to be made must be part of gross total income.  It is difficult to see how the language of this part of sub ­s.(1) of s. 80M can possibly fit in if “such income by way of dividends” were interpreted to mean the full amount of dividend received by the assessee.   The full amount of dividend received by the assessee would not be included in the gross total income.  What would be included  would only be the amount of dividend as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.   If that be so, it is difficult to appreciate how for the purpose  of computing the total income   from   the   gross   total   income,   any   deduction should be required to be made from the full amount of the dividend.   The deduction required to be made for computing the total income from the gross total income can only be from the amount of dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which would be forming part of the gross total income.”

17.

The principle which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 80M was sought to be extrapolated by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessees in the present case, in their submission, in relation to the correct interpretation of Explanation baa to Section 80HHC.  Now, undoubtedly, as already noted earlier, Explanation baa provides first for the computation of the profits of the business which are defined to mean the profits and gains of business or profession as reduced under clauses (1) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 and (2).   For the purpose of clause (1) of Explanation baa, the words “included in such profits” would clearly evince the intent of Parliament that such receipts ought to have formed a part of the profits   and   gains   of     business   or   profession   as   computed   in accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Sections   28   to   44D.       The distinguishing aspect of Explanation baa is that the profits of the business    as computed under the head of  profits  and gains of business or profession are subject to a reduction factor of ninety per cent.  The rationale for the exclusion which has been provided for   by   Parliament   in   Explanation   baa   is   that   items   which   are unrelated to export turnover have to be excluded in computing the profits of business.  Including items which are unrelated to export turnover   in computing the profits of business would result in a distortion of the formula  which is to be applied in construing the provisions of Section 80HHC.  The reason for exclusion, therefore, is   that   in   computing   the   profits   of   business   items   which   are unrelated to export turnover must be excluded because the basis of Section 80HHC is to provide an incentive for export.  The extent of the exclusion which is statutorily mandated by Parliament is ninety per   cent   of   the   total   receipts.     Though   the   entire   quantum   of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 receipts unrelated to export turnover would ordinarily have to be excluded,  the extent of the exclusion has been confined to ninety per cent. This is because the expenditure which is incurred by the assessee   in   earning   these   receipts     would   have   gone   into   the computation of the profits and gains of business or profession and a   distortion   would   be   caused   if   the   entirety   of   the   income generated from the receipts alone were to be excluded.   It is in order to obviate such a distortion that Parliament mandated that ninety per cent of the receipts would be excluded.  Consequently, while the principle which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) must illuminate the interpretation of the words “included in such profits”, the Court cannot, at the same time, be unmindful of the reduction which is postulated by explanation baa, the extent of the reduction and the rationale for effecting the reduction. Decisions of the High Courts :

18.

Several   High   Courts   had   occasion   to   deal   with   the provisions   of   Section   80HHC   including   explanation   baa.     The Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Madras High Court considered the interpretation of Section 80HHC in  K.S.Subbiah   Pillai   &   Co.(India)   Pvt.Ltd.   vs.   CIT.5    The questions of law which were referred to the High Court were as follows :

“1. Whether on a true construction of the Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Income­tax Act, 1961, interest, rent and commission are to be deducted from export profits or only net receipts, if any, after taking into account the payments? ­2. Whether on a true construction of the Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Income­tax Act all the net receipts by way of interest, rent and commission should be   aggregated   before   deduction   and   only   the   net balance, if any, should be deducted from export profits?” The High Court held that the second question of law did not arise on   the   order   of   the   Tribunal   and   only   the   first   question   was required   to   be   addressed.     Dealing   with   the   first   question, Mr.Justice R.Jayasimha Babu, speaking for  the Division Bench held as follows: The clause does not refer to net interest.  It refers, inter alia, to the interest included in the profits and gains of the business or profession. ..   The reference to “such profits” in sub­clause (1) of clause (baa) can only be to the   profits   of   the   business   computed   under  the   head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.  Addition of 5 (2003) 260 ITR 304 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 prefix “the” to “profits” in clause (baa), while referring to the profits and gains of business or profession makes it clear that it is only the amounts already included in that computation which are now to be reduced to the extent of 90 per cent., if those items are included in sub­clause (1) of that definition.” Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 computing   the   deduction   under   Section   80HHC.     The   Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that “on a plain reading of the provision”, it was clear that what the provision stipulates is that the profits of business would be the profits as computed under the head   of   profits   and   gains   of   business   or   profession.     While computing such profits  under the head of profits   and gains  of business   or   profession,   if   any   receipts   by   way   of   brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or a receipt of a similar nature was included in such profits that would have to be reduced by ninety per cent from the profits so computed.  The Division Bench held that no reference to net interest is mentioned in Explanation baa and what had to be seen is only the nature of the receipts as contemplated   by   the   clause.     Once   the   receipt   of   interest   was known, ninety per cent of it would have to be reduced from the profits without deducting any amount.  The Division Bench held as follows: “No expenditure or any other deduction is permissible from   the   receipt   of   interest   income.     Section   80HHC stipulates   a   deduction   in   respect   of   export   profits. Instead of enjoining the Assessing Officer to compute such export profits from out of the consolidated amount of the assessee, which may involve income by way of interest,   rent,   commission   etc.,   the   Legislature   has Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 provided a simple procedure under which 90 per cent of the   receipts   such   as   interest,   rent,   commission, brokerage,   etc.,   shall   be   excluded   as   profits   not attributable to exports.  The intention is, therefore, clear that   there   should   be   no   attempt   to   deduct   any expenditure   from   the   receipts,   however,   related,   such expenditure may be to the receipts.  It is in this view of the matter that the expression “receipt by way of” has been   used   in   the   section   and   not   “income”   of   that nature.” Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 and that the amount of the interest paid by the assessee could not be deducted therefrom.   The Division Bench held that “a plain reading of clause baa of  Explanation to Section 80HHC .. makes this aspect quite clear” and the Tribunal was right in disallowing expression “interest” in Explanation baa connotes net interest as gross  income less expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning such income.  The Delhi High Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) (supra) would fully cover the question as to whether the deduction which is to be effected under Explanation baa was of the entire interest received or of the interest less the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning 8 (2006) 287 ITR 279 9 (2007) 289 ITR 475 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 such income.   Observing that the words used in Section 80HHC were similar to those in Section 80M, the Delhi High Court held thus: “The expression “by way of” which qualified the word “income” in section 80M is similar to the words “receipts by way of” occurring in the Explanation (baa) of section 80HHC of the Act.  Further the words “included in such profits”   occurs   in   both   the   provisions.     Just   as   in Distributors (Baroda) [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC) where it was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the words   “such”   profits   can   only   be   understood   as “computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act”, we are of the view that similar words in clause (baa) should partake of the same meaning.  Applying the ratio of Distributors (Baroda) [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC), we hold   that   the   legislative   intent   in   using   the   word “interest” in clause (baa) to the Explanation in section 80HHC is indicative of “net interest”, i.e., gross interest less the expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning such interest.” The Delhi High Court was of the view that where the plain or literal interpretation of a statute would produce an unintended or absurd     result,   the   literal   construction   should   not   be   adopted. According to the Delhi High Court, the words “included any such profits”  was a clear pointer to the fact that only net interest would be includible in arriving at the business profit. The Delhi High Court also held that unless netting were to be permitted, it would Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 not be in ‘sync’   with the entire section.   The contention of the assessee was that if the deduction of ninety per cent is of gross interest   itself,   the   amounts   spent   in   earning   such   interest   will remain on the debit side of the profit and loss account and will depress the profits to that extent.   This submission was accepted with the observation that the idea of Section 80HHC was to ensure that the exporter gets benefit from the profits derived from export and not to depress the profits further.   Hence, according to the High Court, it can only be  net interest which can be included in the profits and if   netting   were not to be permitted, the result would be that the profits of the exporter would be depressed by an item that is expenditure incurred on earning interest which does not form part of the profits at all.

20.

Having given a careful consideration to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, we are not inclined to follow the view for a number of     reasons.     The   substratum of   the judgment of the Delhi High Court proceeds on the basis that the question as to whether netting should be permissible stands concluded by the judgment  of   the Supreme   Court  in  Distributors  (Baroda).   In Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Distributors (Baroda), while considering the provisions of Section 80M, the Supreme Court interpreted the words “where the gross total income of the assessee being a company included any income by way of dividend received” and the words which provided that in computing the total income of the assessee “a deduction from such income by way of dividend” shall be allowed to the extent specified in the provision.   While  applying the ratio of the judgment in Distributors   (Baroda),   we   have   observed   that   the   expression “receipts   of   a   similar   nature   included   in   such   profits”   in Explanation baa to Section 80HHC must refer to receipts which form a part of the computation under the head of profits and gains of business or profession under Sections 28 to 44D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The expression “such profits” therefore, following the   rationale   in  Distributors   Baroda,  must   refer   to   the computation   of   profits   and   gains   of   business   or   profession   in accordance   with   the   aforesaid   provisions   of   the   Act.     But,   the similarity   between   the   provisions   of   Sections   80HHC   and   80M which  is relied upon in the judgment of the Delhi High Court would miss the comprehensive position as it obtains under Section 80HHC.  The similarity of the provisions should not result into an Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 assumption that the provisions are identical, when they are not. Section 80 HHC is a provision which is intended to provide an incentive for export.  Parliament, therefore, expressed a legislative intent to exclude items which were unrelated to export turnover from the computation of the deduction and the application of the formula.       While   excluding  such  items  which   are  unrelated  to export for the purposes of Section 80HHC, Parliament has taken due note of the fact that the exporter assessee would have incurred some expenditure  in earning the receipts.   The expenditure would have gone into the computation of profits and gains of business or profession     since     the   computation   of   business   profits   under Chapter IV of the Act is made  by amalgamating the receipts as well as expenditure incurred in carrying on the business.   Parliament, however, legislated that in order to remove a cause for distortion, the   reduction   to   be   effected   of     receipts   such   as   brokerage, commission, and interest  should be confined to ninety per cent of those receipts.   In providing a simplified formula in these terms, Parliament evidently adopted a fair and reasonable statutory basis of what may be regarded as expenditure incurred for the earning of the receipts.  Once Parliament has legislated both in regard to the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 nature of the exclusion and the extent of the exclusion, it would not   be   open   to  the   Court   to  order   otherwise   by  rewriting   the legislative provision.  The task of interpretation is to find out the true intent of a legislative provision.  Undoubtedly, in dealing with a provision by way of an incentive, the Court must adopt a broad and liberal interpretation which would advance the purpose. While doing so, the Court is duty bound to iron out the creases but, it is clearly not open to the Court to legislate by substituting a formula or provision other than what has been legislated by   Parliament. The Delhi High Court, with respect, has not adequately emphasised the entire rationale for confining the deduction only to the extent of ninety per cent of the excludible receipts.  While the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred to the C.B.D.T. Circular dated 19 December 1991, as noted earlier, we have also adverted to the Memorandum explaining the clauses of the Finance Bill of 1991. The Memorandum can be relied upon as a legitimate instrument of statutory interpretation and to shed light upon the provisions of Explanation baa.

21.

Before concluding, it would be necessary to note that the Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Delhi High Court   affirmed the judgment of a Special Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal   in the case of  Lalsons.     The Tribunal in the course of its decision, adverted to the deduction of ten   per   cent   allowed   by   Parliament   in   Explanation   baa   while legislating that only ninety per cent of the receipts unrelated to export turnover would be excluded from the profits of business. The Tribunal,   observed that the allowance of ten per cent had been   made   by   Parliament   only   for   meeting   common   expenses, according to Circular 621 dated 19 December 1991 of the C.B.D.T. In Lalsons, the Tribunal observed that in addition to such common expenses, there may be other expenses which have a direct bearing on excludible receipts.  The Tribunal held that if such receipts were to be taken out of the business profits on the footing that they had no connection with the business profits or turnover, it would only be reasonable   to hold that expenditure having nexus with such receipts   should also be taken out of the business profits on the same   footing.       The   Tribunal   noted   that   the   use   of   the   word “receipts” would not refer to gross receipts because the legislature had not used the words “gross” nor “net”.  We are affirmatively of the view that in its discussion on the issue of netting, the Tribunal Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 in   its   Special   Bench   decision   in  Lalsons  has   transgressed   the limitations on the exercise of judicial power.  The Tribunal  has in effect,   legislated   by   providing   a   deduction   on   the   ground   of expenses other than in the terms which have been allowed by Parliament.   That is impermissible.     In the present case,   it is necessary to emphasize that the question before the Court relates to the deduction under Section 80HHC.  An assessee may well be entitled to a deduction in respect of the expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in the computation of the profits and gains of business or profession.  However, for the purposes of computing the deduction under Section 80HHC, the provisions which have been enacted by Parliament would have to be complied.     A deduction in excess of what is mandated by Parliament cannot be allowed on the theory that it is an incentive provision   intended   to   encourage   export.         The   extent   of   the deduction   and   the   conditions   subject   to   which   the   deduction should be granted, are matters for Parliament to legislate upon. Parliament having legislated, it would not be open to the Court to deviate from the provisions which have been enacted in Section 80HHC. Uploaded on - 21/08/2020

22.

In the circumstances, we allow the appeal by holding that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the net interest on  fixed deposits  in the Bank received by  the assessee should be  considered for the purposes of working out the deduction under Section 80HHC and not the gross interest.   The question of law would accordingly stand answered in the aforesaid terms in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.   There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →