The Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samrakshana Electicals Ltd - 2017-LL-0809-49

Citation	2017-LL-0809-49
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent Name	Samrakshana Electicals Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	09/08/2017
Assessment Year	1997-98
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	gross interest • excise duty • sales tax • computation of deduction • total turnover • interest expenditure
Bot Summary:	123 and 235 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are by the Revenue, filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the very same assessee, in respect of the assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The questions of law raised in both these appeals are:- 1) Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sales tax and excise duty are liable for exclusion from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and 2) Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the net outgo of interest and not gross interest is liable for exclusion under clause of the Explanation to Section 80HHC 3. Heard Mr. T. Vinod Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the appellant/Revenue, and Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. The first question of law, as to whether the sales tax and excise duty components are liable for exclusion from the total turnover for 2 the purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC of the Act, has already been answered by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catapharma Ltd.1 5. The second question of law, as to whether the net outgo of interest and not gross interest is liable for exclusion under clause of Explanation to Section 80HHC, has also been answered by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee in ACG Associated Capsules Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax2. The questions of law are answered against the appellant/Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the appeals shall stand dismissed.

THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI I.T.T.A.Nos. 123 and 235 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J) Both these appeals are by Revenue, filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act 1961, challenging orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of very same assessee, in respect of assessment years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. 2. questions of law raised in both these appeals are:- 1) Whether appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that sales tax and excise duty are liable for exclusion from total turnover for purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC of Income Tax Act, 1961? and 2) Whether appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that net outgo of interest and not gross interest is liable for exclusion under clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC? 3. Heard Mr. T. Vinod Kumar, learned standing counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for appellant/Revenue, and Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 4. first question of law, as to whether sales tax and excise duty components are liable for exclusion from total turnover for 2 purpose of computation of relief under Section 80HHC of Act, has already been answered by Supreme Court in favour of assessee in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Catapharma (India) (P) Ltd.1 5. Similarly, second question of law, as to whether net outgo of interest and not gross interest is liable for exclusion under clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC, has also been answered by Supreme Court in favour of assessee in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax2. 6. Therefore, questions of law are answered against appellant/Revenue and in favour of assessee. Consequently, both these appeals are dismissed. As sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in appeals shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J T. RAJANI, J. 9th August, 2017 cbs 1 (2007) 292 ITR 641 (SC) 2 (2012) 343 ITR 89 (SC) 3 HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI I.T.T.A.Nos.123 and 235 of 2003 (dismissed) 9th August, 2017 cbs 4 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samrakshana Electicals Ltd

Metadata

Judgment