Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 80HHC is Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11), cited in 321 of the 1,083 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80HHC

Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.
67 ITR 11 · 1968 · Supreme Court
321
citing judgments

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.
204 ITR 412 · 1993 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works
290 ITR 667 · 2007 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

Excise duty collected by the assessee as an agent on behalf of the government is not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC.

Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
87 ITR 542 · 1973 · Supreme Court
155
citing judgments

Indirect tax components, such as sales tax, are included when calculating gross turnover or sales receipts for determining business income. Deductions relating to these taxes are subject to the provisions of Section 43B, requiring actual payment for deductibility.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

CIT v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd.
346 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
129
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for software license purchase, development of miscellaneous software, and maintenance of websites are considered revenue in nature. Such expenses are deductible in the year they are incurred.

Topman Exports v. CIT
342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court
121
citing judgments

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.
63 ITR 411 · 1967 · Supreme Court
97
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not required to repeat its reasons when it fully agrees with the conclusions of the lower appellate authority and has no further grounds to add, even as the final fact-finding body.

Judgments on Section 80HHC

Nirayu Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1805/BANG/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Nirayu Private Ltd., 1St Main Road, Near Railway Station, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560066. … Appellant Pan:Aaacn 7427 K Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate. Respondent By : Smt.Sreenandini Das, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Company Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 5, Bengaluru, Dated 30/5/2017 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Process Of Chemicals. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2004-05 Was Filed On 01/11/2014 Disclosing Total Income At ‘Nil’. Against Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bengaluru, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Assessing Officer’] Vide Order Dated 31/10/2006 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [‘The Act’ For Short] Computing Total Income At Rs.3,16,28,544/- Under The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The Act. Accordingly, Tax Liability Was Also Assessed U/S 115Jb Of The Page 2 Of 4 Act As The Income Assessed Under Normal Provisions Of The Act Was On ‘Nil’. While Doing So, Ao Added To Book Profits Depreciation Debited To P&L Account On Account Of Re-Valuation & Allowed, As Deduction The Amount Of Eligible Profits U/S 80Hhc To The Extent Of 30% Of Eligible Profits.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Sreenandini Das, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80ASection 80H