Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.70 seconds)Section 80HHB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Gujarat Finance Act, 1932
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Indian Institute Of Public Opinion Co. ... on 10 September, 1981
The assessee has, naturally, placed considerable
reliance on the approval granted by the Board under section
80-O and, in particular, on the
105
Clarification issued by the Board on 31.7.85 after the
assessee's representation, by deleting the reference to
section 80-HHB. The Department has sought to retaliate by
taking up the stand that the contracts in the present case
do not at all fall under section 80-O and that the Board
erred altogether in granting such approval. The Tribunal
accepted a suggestion put forward on behalf of the
Department that the clarification was the result of some
confusion and purported to obtain a further clarification
from the Board in a manner that has attracted vehement
complaint and criticism from the assessee. We do not think
it is necessary for us to enter into this realm of debate
for, apart from the doubtful sustainability of a collateral
attack by the Department on an approval granted by the
highest administrative authority under the Act, we have
endeavoured to point out that the Board was fully justified
in considering the receipts of the assessee as falling under
section 80-O and in granting approval to the contract. We
shall also proceed on the footing that the assessee is also
right in saying that the Board had, after considering its
representations, accepted the position that the approval
under section 80-O would ensure also for the assessment year
1983-84 onwards. In fact, we think that, irrespective of the
Board's clarification of 1985, the correct position is that,
once a contract stands approved under section 80-O in
relation to the first assessment year in relation to which
the approval is sought, the approval ensures for the entire
duration of the contract. This is the principle enunciated
in C.I.T. v. Institute of Public Opinion, (1982) 134 I.T.R.
23 (Del.) the correctness of which cannot be doubted and is,
indeed, accepted by both counsel before us. Section 80-O
does not envisage an application for approval of the
contract every assessment year or the limitation of the
approval granted by the Board to any particular assessment
year. The Board is approving of a contract having regard to
the nature of the receipts flowing therefrom and once this
approval is granted, the assessee is entitled to seek a
deduction under section 80-O in respect of all the receipts
under the contract the consideration for which is traceable
to the three ingredients discussed earlier irrespective of
the assessment year in which the receipts fall for
assessment. The Board's approval of the contract - in 1983
as well as in 1985 - has no doubt this effect. But this is
not the same thing as saying that relief under section 80-O
would be available despite section 80-HHB. It seems to us
that the Board's clarification of 31.7.1985 (which merely
withdraws the reference to section 80-HHB and extends the
approval beyond 1982-83) cannot be read as involving a
further decision that the assessee should be granted relief
under section 80-O contrary to the terms of section 80-HHB.
Section 80-O only empowers the Board to approve of a
contract on being satisfied that it gives rise to receipts
qualifying for deduction under section 80-O and nothing
more.