Judicial update: (Important decision of SC)
"Under Clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc “included in any such profits” have to be deductedfrom the profits & gains of business. The expression “included any such profits” meanssuch receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc included in the profits & gains. Therefore, if any quantum of receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc is allowed as expenses u/s 30 to 44D and is notincluded in the profits of business, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC. In other words, only 90% of the net amount of any receipt of the nature mentioned in clause (1) which is actually included in the profits of the assessee is to be deducted from the profits of the assessee for determining “profits of the business”. The High Court wronglyrelied on CIT vs. K. RavindranathanNair 295 ITR 228 (SC) & circular dated 19.12.1991 explaining the clauses of the Finance Bill, 1991 (Principle in Distributors (Baroda) 155 ITR 120 (SC) followed; Shri Ram Honda Power Equip 289 ITR 475 (Del) approved)"
Held recently by SC in case of ACG Associated Capsules P Ltd-vs-CIT
"Under Clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC, 90% of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc “included in any such profits” have to be deductedfrom the profits & gains of business. The expression “included any such profits” meanssuch receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc included in the profits & gains. Therefore, if any quantum of receipts by way of brokerage, commission, etc is allowed as expenses u/s 30 to 44D and is notincluded in the profits of business, 90% of such quantum of receipts cannot be reduced under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to s. 80HHC. In other words, only 90% of the net amount of any receipt of the nature mentioned in clause (1) which is actually included in the profits of the assessee is to be deducted from the profits of the assessee for determining “profits of the business”. The High Court wronglyrelied on CIT vs. K. RavindranathanNair 295 ITR 228 (SC) & circular dated 19.12.1991 explaining the clauses of the Finance Bill, 1991 (Principle in Distributors (Baroda) 155 ITR 120 (SC) followed; Shri Ram Honda Power Equip 289 ITR 475 (Del) approved)"
Held recently by SC in case of ACG Associated Capsules P Ltd-vs-CIT
No comments:
Post a Comment