Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

MA 12/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3142 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C MISHRA
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.12/AHD/2014 IN CO NO.27/AHD/2008 IN ./ ITA NO.8/AHD/2008 / ASSTT.YEAR: 2004-05] DCIT, CIR.4 AHMEDABAD. VS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 203, CHINUBHAI CENTRE ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI D.C. MISHRA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SMT.URVASHI SODHAN / DATE OF HEARING : 17/07/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/07/2015 *+/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.10.2010 PASSED IN CO NO.27/AHD/2008 FOR THE ASST T.YEAR 2004-05. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LD.CIT(A) H AS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2004-05 V IDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2007. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.8/AHD/2008. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJE CTION BEARING MA NO.12/AHD/2014 2 NO.27/AHD/2008. THE ITAT HAS DECIDED TWO APPEALS B Y THE REVENUE I.E ITA NOS.8 & 9/AHD/2008 AND CO.NO.27 & 28/AHD/2008 F OR THE ASSTT.YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 BY A COMMON ORDER D ATED 22.10.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO MAS., I.E. MA NO.11/AHD/2014. THIS MA WAS FILED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .8/AHD/2008. SECOND MA IS MA NO.12/AHD/2014 FILED IN CO NO.27/AH D/2008. THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE REGARDING CO MPUTATION OF DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC HAS DIRECT ED THE AO NOT TO EXCLUDE OTHER INCOME COMPRISING OF INSURANCE CLAIM, C&F STOCKISTS INTEREST AND CASH DISCOUNT. THIS PART WAS CHALLENG ED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL BY WAY OF GROUND NO.4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS-OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) FOR REDUCTI ON OF 90% OF THE GROSS INTEREST INCOME, DIVIDEND INCOME, RENTAL INCO ME AND OTHER MISC. INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS PROFIT, WHILE COMPUTING T HE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED ALL THE G ROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CO, AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) FOR EXCLUSI ON OF 90% OF GROSS INCOME REPRESENTING INTEREST, DIVIDEND, RENT, MISC. INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS PROFIT. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOW ED GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, AND HELD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE NOT TO EXCLUDE 90% OF INSURANCE CLAIM, C&F STOCKISTS INTEREST AND CASH DISCOUNT. IN MA NO.11/AHD/2014, WE HAVE D EALT WITH THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES A PPEAL, AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATES CAPSULES PVT. LTD., 343 ITR 89, WE HAVE HELD THAT ONLY 90% OF NET OF THESE RECEIPTS IS TO BE EXCLUDED. WE HAV E DECIDED THIS MA ON 20 TH JULY, 2015. OUR ORDER READS AS UNDER: THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE, POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 22.10.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.8/AHD/2008 FOR THE ASST T.YEAR 2004- 05. 2. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE REVENU E IN ITS GROUND NO.4 HAS CHALLENGED THE EXCLUSION OF 90% OF OTHER RECEIPTS MA NO.12/AHD/2014 3 COMPRISING OF INSURANCE CLAIM, C&F STOCKIST INTERES T AND CASH DISCOUNT FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS, WHILE COM PUTING THE DEDUCTION ADMISSION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THE TRIBU NAL HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. RAV INDRANATHAN NAIR, 295 ITR 228 (SC). THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE READ AS UNDER: 5. GROUND NO.4: THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO EXCLUDE 90% OF OTHER INC OME COMPRISING OF (I) INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED OF RS.71 ,53,020/- (II) C&F STOCKIEST INTEREST OF RS.7,62,111/-, AND (III) CASH DISCOUNT OF RS.10,95,018/- FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE I.T.ACT. 5.1 AFTER CAREFULLY PERUSING THIS GROUND WE HAVE N OTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE CLAIM AND C&F STOCKISTS A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN IN ITA NO.1601/AHD/2007 ORDER DATED 06-0 8-2010 ALREADY CITED SUPRA AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAV OUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INSURANCE AND C&F SOTKCISTS WERE NOT IN ANY MANNER RELATED TO THE EXPORT ACTIVI TY OR TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING 90% OF THOSE RECEIPTS WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION(BAA ) TO SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE DECISION FOLLOWED ARE CIT VS . IK. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR 295 ITR 228 (SC), AND ALEMBIC C HEMICAL WORKS 266 ITR 47 (GUJ), LIBERTY FOOT WEAR CO. 283 I TR 398 (PUH) ACCORDING WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THIS PART OF THE GROUND GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE R EVENUE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURTS LARGER BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATES CAPSULES PVT. LTD., 343 ITR 89. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THA T ONLY 90% OF NET RECEIPT IS TO BE EXCLUDED AND NOT THE GROSS RECEIPT. THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BROUGHT THE O RDER OF THE ITAT IN THE AMBIT OF SUFFERING WITH THE PATENT ERRO R. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE, 262 ITR 146, TH E HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS, WHILE EXPOUNDING THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HAS OBSERVED THAT A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T OR THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WOULD GIVE RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH IS TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE MA NO.12/AHD/2014 4 I.T.ACT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE ONLY 90% OF THE NET OF SUCH RECEIPTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED. SHE PLACED ON RECORD C OPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 10.4.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1591 AND 1601/AHD/2007 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-04. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT C AN BE EXERCISED WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RE CTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING, ON POINT ON WH ICH, THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (S UPRA) HAS HELD THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF A JUDGMENT OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD ALWAYS CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM RECORD, REGARDLESS OF THE JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED P RIOR TO OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER PROPOSED TO BE RECTIFIED. THUS, AFTER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HA S SILENCED THE CONTROVERSY AND HELD THAT 90% OF THE NET RECEIPT RE PRESENTING INSURANCE CLAIM, C&F STOCKS INTEREST AND CASH DISCO UNT WOULD BE EXCLUDED. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR ISSUE, ON THE STRENGTH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE ASSTT .YEAR 2003-04 READ AS UNDER: 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL THAT READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCT ION U/S.80HHC ON 90% OF OTHER INCOME BEING (I) INTEREST INCOME (FDR) RS.21,88,854 (II) INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1,63,618 (III) RENT INCO ME RS.12,70,000 (IV) OTHER MISC.INCOME RS.14,18,854/-. 7.1. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONB LE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT.LTD. VS. CI T REPORTED AT 343 ITR 89(SC). LD.COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE MISC.APPLICATION NO.10/AHD/2014. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE RELEVANT CONTENTS ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- MA NO.12/AHD/2014 5 3. . . THIS GROUND HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AND ADJ UDICATED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 8 OF THE ORDER. IT HAS BEE N HELD BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THAT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER INCOM ES REFERRED TO IN THE AFORESAID GROUND NO. 4, 90% OF THE GROSS INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER CLAUSE (BAA) OF THE EXPLANATION U/S. 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED T O ITS DECISION WITH REGARD TO A SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN ASSE SSEE'S APPEAL WHERE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ASIAN STAR CO. LTD. (326 ITR 56). AT PARA 6.9 THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE AFORESAID BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENT 90% OF THE RECEIPTS REFERRED TO IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER CLAUSE (BAA) OF THE EXPLANATION. IT IS FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT TO TAKE CARE OF ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRE D IN EARNING THIS INCOME, AN AD HOC DEDUCTION OF 10% HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND AS PER THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGME NT NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE. 4. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE HON' BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASIAN STAR CO. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCI ATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (343 ITR 89). THE HEAD NOTE OF THIS JUDGM ENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 'UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 8 0HHC OF THE ACT, NINETY PER CENT, OF ANY RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAG E, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A S IMILAR NATURE INCLUDED IN ANY SUCH PROFITS ARE TO BE DEDUCTED FRO M THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. THE EXPRESSION 'INCLUDED ANY SUCH P ROFITS' WOULD MEAN ONLY SUCH RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMIS SION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT WHICH ARE INCLUD ED IN THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AN D GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. THEREFORE, IF ANY QUANTUM OF THE RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARG ES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A SIMILAR NATURE IS ALLOWED AS EXPENSES UNDER SECTIONS 30 TO 44D OF THE ACT AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS O F BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION', NINETY PER CENT, OF SUCH QUANTUM OF RE CEIPTS CANNOT BE REDUCED UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. IN OTHER WORDS, ONLY NINETY PER CENT, OF THE NET AMOUNT OF ANY RECEIPT OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (1) W HICH IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DE DUCTED FROM THE PRO- FITS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING 'PROFITS OF TH E BUSINESS' OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC. MA NO.12/AHD/2014 6 EXPLANATION (BAA) HAS TO BE CONSTRUED ON ITS OWN LA NGUAGE AND AS PER THE PLAIN NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN IT, THE WORDS 'RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CH ARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A SIMILAR NATURE INCLUDED IN SUCH PROFIT S' WILL NOT ONLY REFER TO THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS BUT ALSO THE QUANTUM OF R ECEIPTS INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE H EAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PART OF EXPLANATION (BAA). ACCORDINGLY, IF ANY QUANTUM OF A NY RECEIPT OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON', NINETY PER CENT, OF SUCH QUANTUM OF THE RECEIPT CANNOT BE DEDU CTED UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC. HELD, ACCORDINGLY, THAT NINETY PER CENT, OF NOT THE GROSS RENT OR GROSS INTEREST BUT ONLY THE NET INTEREST OR NET RENT, WHI CH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPU TED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', WAS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80 HHC FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REVERSED. DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRMED. DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) P. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [19 85] 155 ITR 120 (SC) RELIED ON. CIT V. SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIP [2007] 289 ITR 47 5 (DELHI) APPROVED. CIT V. ASIAN STAR CO. LTD. [2010] 326 ITR 56 (BOM) IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED.' 5. FROM THE ABOVE IT MAY KINDLY BE APPRECIATE D THAT 90% OF ONLY NET INCOME CAN BE EXCLUDED UNDER CLAUSE (BAA) OF TH E EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80HHC WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED BY L ARGER BENCH OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT COMPRISING OF THREE JUDGE S AND THEY HAVE ALSO FOLLOWED THE EARLIER SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS V. CIT (342 ITR 49). 7.2. LD.SR.DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THE LEGAL POSITION AS ENUNCIATED IN THE ABOVE REFERRED JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES (P) LTD. VS. CI T (SUPRA). 7.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD.SR.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE MA NO.12/AHD/2014 7 ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT.LTD.(SUPRA), WHEREIN TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NINETY PERCENT OF NOT THE G ROSS RENT OR GROSS INTEREST BUT ONLY THE NET INTEREST OR NET RENT, WHI CH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMP UTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER CLAUSE(1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE RATION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, WE HEREBY RESTORE T HE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-HH C IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT.LTD.(SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.10.2010 WAS SUFFERIN G WITH APPARENT ERROR. WE ALLOW THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HOLD THAT THE AO SHALL RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC TO THE ASSESSEE BY EXCLUDING 90 % OF THE NET RECEIPTS OF INSURANCE CLAIM, C&F STOCKS INTEREST AN D CASH DISCOUNTS, AS AGITATED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS GROUND NO.4. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS.1 TO 8 OF THE CO NO.27/AHD/2008. FOLLOWING OUR ORDER EXTRACTED (SUP RA), WE ALLOW THIS MISC. APPLICATION ALSO, AND DIRECT THE AO THAT 90% OF THE NET INCOME REPRESENTING INTEREST, DIVIDEND, RENTAL AND MISC. INCOME IS TO B E EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS PROFIT WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/07/2015