{"id":2776,"date":"2011-03-02T21:01:31","date_gmt":"2011-03-02T15:31:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2776"},"modified":"2011-03-02T21:01:31","modified_gmt":"2011-03-02T15:31:31","slug":"cit-vs-packworth-udyog-kerala-high-court-full-bench-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-normal-provisions-not-on-pl-profits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-packworth-udyog-kerala-high-court-full-bench-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-normal-provisions-not-on-pl-profits\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Packworth Udyog (Kerala High Court &#8211; Full Bench)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=365\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=365&varname2=packworth_udyog_80HHC_115JB.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (packworth_udyog_80HHC_115JB.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nFor s. 115JA\/JB s. 80HHC deduction to be computed as per normal provisions &#038; not on P&#038;L profits<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Though the assessee was not entitled to any deduction u\/s 80HHC under the normal provisions of the Act owing to losses, it claimed that in computing the book profits u\/s 115JA\/115JB, deduction u\/s 80HHC ought to be computed having regard to the profits as per the P&#038;L A\/c as held in <strong>GTN Textiles<\/strong> 248 ITR 372 (Ker). On appeal, the matter was referred to the Full Bench. HELD by the Full Bench:<\/p>\n<p>(i) The assessees&#8217; contention that <strong>export profit has to be computed with reference to the P&#038;L A\/c<\/strong> prepared under the Companies Act is <strong><em>not acceptable<\/em><\/strong> because there is no such provision in s.80HHC to determine export profit with reference to P&#038;L A\/c. Clause (iv) of s. 115JB (2) provides that the &#8220;amount of profit eligible for deduction u\/s 80HHC as computed u\/s 80HHC (3)&#8221; has to be deducted in computing the book profits. Accordingly, <strong>only the deduction u\/s 80HHC as computed under the normal provisions is allowable<\/strong>;<\/p>\n<p>(ii) However, in accordance with <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ajanta-pharma-vs-cit-supreme-court-for-s-115jb-book-profits-have-to-be-reduced-by-eligible-s-80hhc-deduction-not-actual-deduction\">Ajanta Pharma<\/a><\/strong> 327 ITR 305 (SC), the <strong>restriction in s. 80AB or s. 80B(5) should not be applied<\/strong> and deduction u\/s 80HHC should be allowed for s. 115JA\/JB <strong><strong>even if the carry forward of business loss or depreciation reduces the gross total income to Nil<\/strong><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<strong>Note<\/strong>: The same view as regards the P&#038;L profits has been taken in <strong>Al-Kabeer Exports<\/strong> 233 CTR 443 (Bom)\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The assessees&#8217; contention that <strong>export profit has to be computed with reference to the P&#038;L A\/c<\/strong> prepared under the Companies Act is <strong><em>not acceptable<\/em><\/strong> because there is no such provision in s.80HHC to determine export profit with reference to P&#038;L A\/c. Clause (iv) of s. 115JB (2) provides that the &#8220;amount of profit eligible for deduction u\/s 80HHC as computed u\/s 80HHC (3)&#8221; has to be deducted in computing the book profits. Accordingly, <strong>only the deduction u\/s 80HHC as computed under the normal provisions is allowable<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-packworth-udyog-kerala-high-court-full-bench-for-s-115jajb-s-80hhc-deduction-to-be-computed-as-per-normal-provisions-not-on-pl-profits\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2776","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2776","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2776"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2776\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2776"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2776"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2776"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}