NIKHIL J. SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1392/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer assesses such income as part of the 'business income' of the eligible undertaking, then it cannot be excluded for computing the deduction under Section 10B. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for various income components. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied this deduction, arguing the income was not derived from export of goods.

What were the issues?

Whether income assessed as 'business income' by the Assessing Officer can be excluded for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Hearing: 09/03/2018Pronounced: 09/03/2018

Heard together (2 matters)

SA NO. 34/MUM/2018
ITA NO. 1392/MUM/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER G.S. PANNU, AM :

1.

When the stay application of the assessee was called out, it was brought out that the issue raised in appeal relating to partial denial of 2 Nikhil J Shah HUF SA No. 34/Mum/2018 assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) stands on an identical footing as was considered by the Tribunal on an earlier occasion in assessee’s own case in relation to Assessment Year 2009-10. Thus, with the convergence of both the sides, the captioned appeal was taken up for hearing.

2.

Notably, the solitary issue in this appeal arises from the action of the Assessing Officer in denying assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act with respect to the following components of income :-

Particulars Amount Duty Drawback 17,07,191 Excise Refund 63,93,411 Sales tax refund 25,39,490 Gain on forward contract 7,70,807 Interest on FDR 3,34,975 Total 1,17,45,874

3.

We find that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) denied the deduction u/s 10B of the Act in relation to the aforesaid incomes primarily on the ground that such incomes cannot be said to have been derived from export of goods. Similar reasoning was taken by the income-tax authorities in Assessment Year 2009-10 also in denying assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act in relation to such-like incomes. The Tribunal in its order for Assessment Year 2009-10 in dated 08.03.2018 found that once the Assessing Officer had assessed an income as forming part of ‘business income’ of the undertaking, thereafter such an income could not be excluded for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s 10B

3 Nikhil J Shah HUF SA No. 34/Mum/2018 of the Act. Notably, the conclusion of the Tribunal was based on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 016 ITR (Trib) 0565 (Indore) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riviera Home Furnishing vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 19.11.2015.

4.

In this background, in the instant year also, we have examined the assessment order and find that while the Assessing Officer disentitles the assessee from the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in relation to the aforesaid five elements of income amounting to Rs.1,17,45,874/-, yet while finalising the assessment, such incomes have been assessed as a part of ‘business income’ of the eligible undertaking. Once such factum emerges, the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maral Overseas Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riviera Home Furnishing vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) clearly comes into operation and assessee’s entitlement for claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act in relation to such incomes cannot be faulted. There is no denial to the aforesaid factual matrix by the Revenue before us and, therefore, following the aforesaid discussion, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to include the aforesaid elements of income for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act as he has assessed the same as part of ‘business income’.

4 Nikhil J Shah HUF SA No. 34/Mum/2018

5.

Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and consequently, the corresponding stay application is rendered infructuous, which is hereby dismissed.

The above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 9th March, 2018.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →