9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 158 - HC - Income TaxDetermination of Gross Total Income - Deduction u/s 80-I - business income from telecommunication cables - loss on account of lease business - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the assessee would place reliance on a judgment of this court in CIT v. Siddaganga Oil Extractions P. Ltd. 1992 (11) TMI 65 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . In the said judgment, two other judgments of this court have been noticed CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. and Sterling Foods v. CIT 1984 (6) TMI 41 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . A careful reading of the said judgment would show that the said Division Bench of this court has not taken into consideration the impact of section 80AB of the Act. In the light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court these judgments are of no assistance to the assessee. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper not to place reliance on this judgment for the purpose of consideration of section 80AB and that too in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court which is binding on us. In the case on hand, unfortunately both the parties have not chosen to refer to the Tribunal the impact of section 80AB. If only the Department had invited the attention of the Tribunal to the impact of section 80AB the Tribunal would not have passed this order. We express our displeasure in the matter. To avoid such recurring instances, in future, the Income-tax Department is well-advised to engage competent legal counsel, before the Tribunal, whenever large sums of money are involved with complicated questions of law. Income-tax provides revenue to the Government. If the Department is not properly defended, it would result in unnecessary references to this court and loss of time of every body concerned including the time of this court. We deem it proper to direct learned counsel to place our order before the Commissioner for proper remedical action in future cases. In the result, this appeal is accepted. The order of the Tribunal in so far as this issue is concerned, is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. 2. Consideration of losses from leasing business in computing net income for deduction. 3. Applicability and overriding effect of section 80AB on section 80-I. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80-I: The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80-I based solely on the income from the manufacturing business or whether losses from the leasing business should also be considered. The assessee filed a return showing income from the manufacturing of telecommunication cables. The Assessing Officer (AO) included losses from the leasing business in the computation, reducing the eligible profits for the deduction under section 80-I. The Appellate Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that only the income from the manufacturing business should be considered. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal to the High Court. 2. Consideration of Losses from Leasing Business: The AO's method included losses from the leasing business in the net income calculation, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal, supporting the assessee, held that only the income from the manufacturing business should be considered for the deduction under section 80-I. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the principle that when two views are possible, the one beneficial to the taxpayer should be adopted. 3. Applicability and Overriding Effect of Section 80AB: The High Court examined the interplay between sections 80-I and 80AB. Section 80AB, introduced retrospectively, mandates that deductions under Chapter VI-A must consider the net income, including losses. The Supreme Court's judgments in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and Motilal Pesticides (I.) P. Ltd. v. CIT clarified that section 80AB overrides other sections in Chapter VI-A, including section 80-I. The High Court emphasized that section 80AB requires the computation of income to include both profits and losses, thereby impacting the deductions available under section 80-I. Judgment Analysis: The High Court scrutinized the Tribunal's reliance on CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd., noting that this judgment did not consider section 80AB. The High Court agreed with the Bombay High Court's interpretation in Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer of Income-tax, which emphasized adjusting losses from one priority unit against profits from another to compute the gross total income. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in not considering the overriding effect of section 80AB. It highlighted that section 80AB mandates the inclusion of all types of income, including losses, in computing deductions under Chapter VI-A. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not addressing the impact of section 80AB, despite its clear applicability as established by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the AO was correct in including the losses from the leasing business in computing the net income for the deduction under section 80-I, in accordance with section 80AB. The appeal was accepted, and the High Court directed that future cases involving significant sums and complex legal questions should be handled by competent legal counsel to avoid unnecessary references and ensure proper defense of the Department's interests.
|
