DCIT - 4(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BALAJI FILAMENTS LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for 80HHC deduction, only the profits and turnover of the export unit should be considered, aligning with previous tribunal orders. For 80IB deduction, twisting and texturizing of yarn was confirmed as manufacturing activity, following a Supreme Court decision.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction u/s. 80HHC and treating yarn twisting and texturizing as manufacturing for deduction u/s. 80IB. The assessee had claimed these deductions based on separate accounts for its export unit and the nature of its yarn processing activity.
What were the issues?
Whether the deduction u/s. 80HHC should be computed on the turnover and profit of the entire assessee or only the export unit. Whether twisting and texturizing of yarn constitutes manufacturing activity for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80IB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 80HHC,Section 80IB,Section 28,Section 70,Section 71,Section 72,Section 32(2),Section 80IA(5),Section 80IA(9),Section 80IA(10)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Emptee Poly Tarn Pvt. Ltd.34 citing320 ITR 665 · 2010 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM
PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, for the assessment year 2003-2004. 2. First three grievance of revenue relates to allowing deduction u/s.80HHC at Rs.29,02,724/- by computing total turnover as per clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC. As per AO while computing deduction u/s.80HHC, turnover and profit of assessee as a whole to be taken in place of profit and turnover of a unit or undertaking of assessee.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Assessee’s claim deduction u/s.80HHC was reduced by AO by observing that income of the assessee was to be first computed as per provisions of Section 28 after taking into consideration the net results of income and after giving effect to the provisions of set off loss u/s.70&71 and set off of brought forward loss u/s.72 and deduction u/s.32(2) of the I.T.Act in respect of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier assessment years. By the impugned order CIT(A) restricted the addition u/s.80HHC to the extent of gross total income. Ld. AR placed on record order of the Tribunal assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1999-2000 wherein the Tribunal has dealt with the similar issue and allowed the same in assessee’s favour.
We had gone through the order of the Tribunal, which reads as under :- “12. We have heard both the learned representatives, also perused the relevant material available in the paper book. So far as factual position of the case is concerned, undisputedly, the assessee runs three units. For export oriented unit, books of accounts, records as well as Profit & Loss Account etc. are maintained separately. In such a case, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act, the relevant judicial pronouncements have held that u/s 80 HHC, only the profits and turnover of the export division alone have to be taken into consideration and not clubbed profits. In this regard, the case is squarely covered by the findings in the case of M/s. Mandhana Industries Pvt. Ltd. as well as by the Delhi ITAT judgment in the case of CIT vs. Padmini Technologies Ltd.(supra) and in the case of Subhash Chgandan Kathuria vs. DCIT as well. We have also considered the case law cited by the Learned DR in 172 Taxman 347. But in our opinion, it is not applicable qua peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the assessee should succeed. Hence, the Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the deduction and other benefits u/s 80HHC of the Act qua the assessee by taking into consideration the profits and turnover of the export units only after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. Hence, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.” As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A).
Next grievance of the revenue relates to CIT(A)’s action in treating twisting and texturising of yarn is a manufacturing activity, thereby allowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB.
The issue under consideration is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. 320 ITR 665, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn is a manufacturing activity, insofar as thermo mechanical process embedded in process brings about structural change in yarn, therefore, makes process manufacture. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in treating the twisting and texturising of yarn as manufacturing thereby allowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act.
With regard to ground No.5, it was alleged by ld. AR that this ground does not arise out of the order passed by CIT(A), insofar as provisions of section 80IA(5), 80IA(9) and 80IA(10) of the Act, is not applicable to the case of the assessee.
We have also gone through the order of the CIT(A), wherein none of the provisions have been dealt with. Accordingly, ground No.5 of revenue’s appeal is infructuous.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27/04/2016. (PAWAN SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 27/04/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, सत्मावऩत प्रनत //// उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt.
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026