Skip to main content

Deduction Under Section 80HH Income Tax Act Should Be From 'Gross Profits & Gains' Instead Of 'Net Income'

In Vijay Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the deduction allowed under Section 80HH(1) of the IT act was on the gross profits and gains as claimed by the assessed or on net income from profits and gains in the manner provided under Sections 28 to 44B, after allowing deductions for depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance.as claimed by the tax department. 

The Supreme Court agreeing with the department said that Sections 28 to 44B relating to income from profits and gains of business or profession fall within Chapter IV of the Act, which deals with computation of total income. This income is computed after giving deductions to factors like depreciation, investment allowances etc.

Section 80HH falls within Chapter VIA, which deals with deductions to be made in computing total income. So the bench had to decide whether the meaning of income under Chapter IV should be applied to Chapter VIA. The bench noted that conceptually 'total income' was different from 'profits and gains'. It noted that the reference order had observed that 'profits and gains' was a wider concept than 'total income'.  The profits and gains/loss are arrived at after making actual expenses incurred from the figure of sales by the assessee. It does not include any depreciation and investment allowance, as admittedly these are not the expenses actually incurred by the assessee. However, the term income does take into consideration the deductions on account of depreciation and investment allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not synonymous with the term 'income. The deductions under Chapter IV are given to arrive at the figure of net income under the head of "income from profits and gains of business or profession". In contrast, under Chapter VI-A of the Act certain deductions are given by way of incentives. Assessees may earn these deductions on fulfilling the eligibility conditions contained therein, even when they are not in the nature of any expenditure incurred by the assessee.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more