9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions of section 80-I of the Income-tax Act - Application of section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax - Notional carry forward of losses in eligible units - Set off of losses against profits in different units - Re-computation of deduction under section 80-I Interpretation of provisions of section 80-I of the Income-tax Act: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued that the eligible unit should not be considered as the sole source of income, and losses should be set off against profits of different units. Citing judgments like CIT v. Sundaravel Match Industries and Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, the appellant contended that section 80-I(6) is only for computing deductions and does not override other sections like 80A or 80B. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that section 80-I(6) mandates treating the industrial undertaking as the sole source of income, and losses must be notionally carried forward for deduction under section 80-I. Application of section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax: The Commissioner invoked section 263 based on the appellant's claim of deduction under section 80-I exceeding a certain amount without setting off notional carry forward losses. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to adjust the losses against the current year's profit, deeming the previous order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the conditions of being both erroneous and prejudicial were not met. Notional carry forward of losses in eligible units: The dispute also revolved around the concept of notional carry forward of losses in eligible units. The appellant contended that losses from one unit should be set off against profits of another unit for net relief, while the Departmental Representative emphasized that losses absorbed by other income must be notionally carried forward and adjusted against eligible profits in subsequent years. Set off of losses against profits in different units: The parties disagreed on whether losses from one unit can be set off against profits of another unit. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their argument, while the Departmental Representative highlighted the specific provisions of section 80-I(6) requiring losses to be adjusted against eligible profits of the same unit. Re-computation of deduction under section 80-I: Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 and directing the re-computation of deduction under section 80-I, considering section 80-I(6) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's grounds, noting that the appellant had settled a similar issue for a different assessment year under the K.V.S. Scheme, indicating acceptance of the Commissioner's action. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the Commissioner.
|
