High Court Of Kerala
Olam Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair And C.K. Abdul Rehim, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 169 Of 2008
May 29, 2009
JUDGMENT
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. – In the appeal filed by the assessee, the questions raised pertain to computation of deduction for export profit under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. The assessee having its industry in a backward area was entitled to deduction under section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act. However, by virtue of section 80-IB(13), read with section 80-IA(9) of the Act the assessee will not be entitled to claim deductions both under section 80-IB and under section 80HHC of the Act. Tribunal following their Full Bench decision upheld the disallowance under section 80-IB(13) of the Act, but granted deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Even though senior counsel appearing for the assessee contended that deduction under section 80HHC is a full code by itself and no exclusion would be made while computing eligible deduction, we notice that section 80-IB and under section 80HHC come under Chapter VI-A and by virtue of specific exclusion under section 80-IB(13) of the Act the assessee is not entitled to simultaneous deduction of both. In other words, while computing deduction under section 80HHC deduction granted under section 80-IB cannot be reckoned or has to be excluded. We find the order of the Tribunal is consistent with the statutory provisions and, therefore, appeal on this issue is rejected.
2. So far as computation of relief under section 80HHC is concerned, we find that assessment requires reconsideration because by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Janatha Cashew Exporting Co. v. CIT [2009] 309 ITR 440 the assessee is entitled to deduction of export profit arising from export of goods made through Export Houses, the assessee acting as supporting manufacturer. However, it is on condition of availability of disclaimer certificate issued by the Export Houses. It is for the assessee to produce disclaimer certificate in revised assessment proceedings before the officer. So far as assessee’s claim for determination of deduction before excluding carry forward or set-off loss is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 380 is against the proposition canvassed by the assessee. Therefore, assessment on this does not warrant any modification. Appeal is consequently disposed of partly allowing the claim and directing the Assessing Officer to re-work relief under section 80HHC in terms of the decision above referred after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
[Citation : 332 ITR 40]
