M/s. Wheels India Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1430/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1106 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1430/MDS/2010 ASST. YEARS : 1999-2000 M/S. WHEELS INDIA LIMITED, PADI, CHENNAI 600 050. PAN : AAACW0315K. (APPELLANT) V. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT CHENNAI 600 101. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENT BY : MR. SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 14 FEB 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 MAR 2013 O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU, CHENN AI , DATED 28.6.2010 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- ITA 1430/MDS/2010 2 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE EXCLUSION OF 90% OF DUTY DR AW BACK, LABOUR CHARGES AND WEIGHMENT CHARGES AND DIVIDEND INCOME, INTEREST INCOME AND PROFIT ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS FROM BOOK PROFITS U/S.115JA WHILE COMP UTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. 1.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENTS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S.115JA HAVING REGARD TO THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DECISION I N THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. V. CIT (255 ITR 273)(S.C) . 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INCLUSION OF DUTY DRAW BACK AND LABOUR CHARGES IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. 2.1 IN ANY EVENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LTU OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT CLAUS E (BA) OF EXPLANATION TO THE SECTION 80HHC EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT, TOTAL TURNOVER DOES NOT INCLUDE SUM REFERRED TO CLAUSE (IIIC) OF SEC.28, AND IT DOES NO T CONTAIN ELEMENT OF TURNOVER. ITA 1430/MDS/2010 3 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFA CTURE OF WHEELS FOR AUTOMOBILES. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED UNDER SEC.143(3) READ WITH SEC.147 OF THE I.T. ACT DENYIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U NDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THIS TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 07.3.2008 IN ITA NO.2184&2341/MDS/2006 RESTORED THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTED DE DUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC AFTER EXAMINING THE PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. (106 ITD 193). GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER DATED 6.7.2009 COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT WHIL E DETERMINING BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK PROFITS. WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EX CLUDED 90% OF DIVIDEND INCOME, PROFITS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS, I NTEREST RECEIVED, ITA 1430/MDS/2010 4 DUTY DRAW BACK AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME FROM THE PR OFITS OF BUSINESS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE SAID INCOMES WERE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. K. RAVINDRANATH AN NAIR (295 ITR 228) AGGRIEVED OF THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN EXCLUDING 90% OF THE SAID INCOMES AND INCLUDING THE SAID INCO ME IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN REDUCING 90% OF THE INCOMES APPLYING CLAUSE (BAA) O F EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC OF THE I.T. ACT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE PRO FITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT SUCH INCOMES SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL TURNOVER IN COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFITS DEDUCT ION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HH C OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT LABO UR CHARGES, DUTY DRAW BACK AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME SHALL HAVE TO BE INCLUDED ITA 1430/MDS/2010 5 IN TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING RELI EF UNDER SEC.80HHC. AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CL AUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED WHILE ARRIVING AT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT IN ARRIVING AT BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. THE C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF OF MUMBAI SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD. V. CIT (327 ITR 305) AND SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115J A OF THE ACT. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT EXPLA NATION PROVIDED IN SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT AFTER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.(4 A) & (4B) OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION IN COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER SE C.80HHC SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.115JA REFERS TO THE PROVISIONS OF DEDUCTION COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A), (B) OR (C) OF SUB SEC.(3 ) OR (3A) AND ITA 1430/MDS/2010 6 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUB SEC.(4) & (4A) ONLY. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT CLAUSE (BAA) HAS NO APPL ICATION WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS OF SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT TH E DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WAS CONFIRMED B Y HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS WHET HER DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE T O THE INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE OF NORMAL INCOME AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT NO WHERE IN THESE DECISIONS IT WAS HELD THAT CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT IN ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA/JB OF THE ACT. ITA 1430/MDS/2010 7 6. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED IN SEC.80HHC IS FOR THE WHOLE SECTION AND IT IS NOT FOR SUB SEC.(4A) OR (4B) OF SEC.80HHC OF THE AC T ONLY. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION CONTAINING CLAUSE (BAA) HAS APPLICA TION EVEN WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT IN A RRIVING AT BOOK PROFITS. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT IN EXCLUDING 90% OF TH E SAID INCOMES APPLYING CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC O F THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER SEC.80 HHC AND ARRIVING AT T HE BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE CASE LA W RELIED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED DEDU CTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOK PRO FITS AVAILABLE. WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM TH E NET PROFIT SHOWN IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER CLAUSE (VII I) PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO SEC.115JA WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ITA 1430/MDS/2010 8 [(VIII) THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80HHC COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A), (B) OR (C) OF SUB- SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A), AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF THAT SECTI ON, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTIONS (4) & ( 4A) OF THAT SECTION. 8. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CLAUSE (VIII), DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) , (B) OR (C) OF SUB SEC.(3) OR (3A) SUBJECT TO CONDITION SPECIFIED IN SEC.(4) AND (4A) OF SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT. EXPLANATION PROVIDED IN SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT AFTER SUB SECTION (4) AND (4A) DEFINES WHAT IS CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE, EXPORT OUT OF INDIA, EXPORT TURNO VER, TOTAL TURNOVER, PROFITS OF BUSINESS, EXPORT HOUSE CERTIF ICATE OR TRADING HOUSE CERTIFICATE ETC., IN CLAUSES (A), (AA), (B), (BA), (BAA), (C) ETC. THESE DEFINITIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR THE WHOLE OF S EC.80HHC OF THE ACT AS THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED IN SEC.80HHC AFTE R SUB SEC.(4) AND (4A) IS STATED TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION THAT MEANS WHOLE OF SEC.80HHC AND EXPLANATION IS NOT PROVIDED ONLY FOR SUB SEC (4), (4A) OR 4B) OF SEC.80HHC OF THE AC T. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH T HE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPLANATION TO ITA 1430/MDS/2010 9 SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE FOR SUB SEC.(4B) ONLY. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, CLAUSE (BAA) PROVIDED IN SEC.80HHC HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE AC T IN ARRIVING AT BOOK PROFITS. 9. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) WAS AS UNDER :- WHETHER, ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE ASSESSEE, WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS ENTITLED TO REDUCE THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS A/C . BY- (I) THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC ACTUALLY COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A), (B) OR (C) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A) AS THE CASE MAY BE; OR THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO BOOK PROFITS (AFTER ADJUSTMENTS) IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A) OF SECTION 80HHC. ITA 1430/MDS/2010 10 10. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE QUESTION FORMUL ATED, THE QUESTION BEFORE SPECIAL BENCH WAS WHETHER DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC.80HHC AS THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON ACTUALLY COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A),(B),(C) OF SUB SEC.(3) OR SUB SEC.(3A) OR PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC COMP UTED WITH REFERENCE TO BOOK PROFITS AFTER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN SUB SEC.(3) OF SUB SEC.(3A) OF SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT . THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER :- 66. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IN A MAT SCHEME IS FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME, WHICH IS OTHERWI SE THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT. IF NO DEDUCTION IS AVAIL ABLE TO AN ASSESSEE, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME ITSELF IS THE T AXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. MAT SCHEME DOES NOT PROVID E FOR DEDUCTIONS. THEREFORE, THE INTERPRETATION IS T HAT THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT OF A COMPANY ITSELF IS THE GRO SS TOTAL INCOME OF THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80HHC IS IN THAT WAY GIVEN OUT OF GROSS TOT AL INCOME IN A CASE FALLING UNDER MAT. THIS IN TURN M EANS THAT SECTION 80HHC SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT. SECTIONS 115J, 115JA AND 115 JB ITA 1430/MDS/2010 11 COME INTO OPERATION, AS THE REGULAR PROFITS HAS BEE N SUBSTITUTED BY THE BOOK PROFIT. ONCE THE SUBSTITUT ION IS OVER, THERE IS NO WAY TO GO BACK TO THE NORMAL COMPUTATION PROCESS OF STATUTORY PROFIT, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN OVERWHELMED BY SECTIONS 115J, 115JA AN D 115JB. THIS RECONCILES THE ALLEGED INCOMPATIBILITY POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE THAT THE DEDUCTION AVAIL ABLE TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS SUBJECT TO SEC TION 80HHC IN A CASE OF MAT ASSESSMENT IS TO BE WORKED O UT ON THE BASIS OF THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROFIT COMPUTED UNDER THE REGULAR PROV ISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 11. THEREFORE, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, TH E SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC IN A MAT SCHEME IS ALLOWABLE FROM TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS OT HERWISE THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT. SO, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC .80HHC HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO BOOK PROFITS AND THE DED UCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS PER CLAUSE (A),(B) OR (C) OF SUB SEC.(3) OR (3A) OF SEC.80HHC INCLUDING THE ADJUSTME NTS SPECIFIED IN EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC CONTAINING CLAUSE (BAA). THE SPECIAL ITA 1430/MDS/2010 12 BENCH DID NOT SPECIFY THAT CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANAT ION TO SEC.80HHC HAS NO APPLICATION WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO BOOK PROFITS. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE UP HOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXCLUDI NG 90% OF THE SAID INCOMES WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC A ND ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFITS UNDER SEC.115JA OF THE ACT. WE CO NFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMIS S THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN INCLUDING DU TY DRAW BACK AND LABOUR CHARGES IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT. 13. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN RESPECT OF DUTY DRAW BACK, CLAUSE (BA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.8 0HHC SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS NOT TO INCLUDE DUTY DRAW BACK IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER AND, ITA 1430/MDS/2010 13 THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN INCLUDING D UTY DRAW BACK IN THE TOTAL TURN OVER. 14. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE MATERIA LS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. CLAUSE (BA) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC.80HHC DEFINES TOTAL TURNOVER AS UNDER :- [(BA) TOTAL TURNOVER SHALL NOT INCLUDE FREIGHT OR INSURANCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRANSPORT OF THE GOODS OR MERCH ANDISE BEYOND THE CUSTOMS STATION AS DEFINED IN CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 (52 OF 1962): PROVIDED THAT IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1991, THE EXPRESSION TOTAL TURNOVERSHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF IT ALSO EXCLUDED A NY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIIA), (IIIB), (IIIC),(IIID) AND (III E) OF SECTION 28:] PROVISO TO CLAUSE (BA) STATES THAT TOTAL TURNOVER S HALL HAVE THE EFFECT AS IF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIIA),(IIIB), (IIIC), (IIID) AND (IIIE) OF SEC.28 OF THE ACT IS ALSO EXCLUDED. CLAUSE (IIIC) OF SEC.28 REFERS TO ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY WAY OF DUTY DRAY BACK. THER EFORE, SINCE THE PROVISO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE TOTAL TURNOV ER SHALL HAVE THE EFFECT AS IF THE DUTY DRAW BACK IS EXCLUDED, THE SA ME SHALL NOT BE ITA 1430/MDS/2010 14 INCLUDED IN TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU TING RELIEF UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES , IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T V. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (SUPRA) , WE HOLD THAT THE SAME SHALL BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPU TING RELIEF UNDER SEC.80HHC OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 17. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF MARCH 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( N.S. SAINI ) (CHALLA N AGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED : 08 TH MARCH 2013. JLS. C.C : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./G.FILE.