9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 857 - HC - Income TaxSet off of loss or unabsorbed depreciation - AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under sections 80HH, 80HHD and 80-I on the ground that the gross total income of the assessee, as defined under section 80B(5), was in loss - Held that - The non obstante clause in sub-section (6) of section 80-I refers to only the quantum of deduction, therefore, the gross total income referred to in section 80-I(1) is to be read with section 80B(5) and only then the computation is to be made in the manner provided under the Act - The mandate contained in sections 80A and 80B(5) requires that gross total income should be computed after setting off the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, etc. for allowing of the deductions specified under sections 80C to 80U - since the gross total income in the instant case was shown nil, hence there was no question of permitting deduction to the assessee in view of the provisions contained in section 80A(1) and 80A(2) - Decided against the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of full deductions under sections 80-I, 80-IA, 80HH, and 80HHD despite gross total income being negative. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling in Canara Workshops P. Ltd. to the present case. 3. Interpretation of sections 80A, 80B(5), 80HH, and 80-I regarding computation of gross total income and deductions. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Full Deductions Under Sections 80-I, 80-IA, 80HH, and 80HHD The Assessing Officer disallowed the deductions under sections 80HH, 80HHD, and 80-I because the gross total income, as defined under section 80B(5), was a loss. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed the deduction under section 80-I but upheld the disallowance under sections 80HH and 80HHD. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed full deductions, which was challenged by the appellant on the grounds that the Tribunal's decision contravened sections 80AB and 80B(5). Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court's Ruling in Canara Workshops P. Ltd. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Canara Workshops P. Ltd., which dealt with section 80E and held that losses from other units should not be set off against the profits of the eligible unit for quantifying deductions. However, the appellant argued that this case was not applicable since it pertained to section 80E, which was replaced by section 80-I, and the assessment years involved were different. Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 80A, 80B(5), 80HH, and 80-I The appellant contended that the gross total income must be computed after setting off brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, as mandated by sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). The respondent argued that section 80-I(6), a non obstante clause, required the computation of deductions as if the eligible unit was the only source of income, thus precluding the consideration of losses from other units. Conclusions: 1. Gross Total Income and Deductions: The court held that the gross total income must be computed after setting off brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation as per sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). The non obstante clause in section 80-I(6) applies only to the quantum of deduction and does not override sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). 2. Applicability of Canara Workshops P. Ltd.: The court found that the Tribunal erred in applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Canara Workshops P. Ltd. to the present case. The provisions of section 80-I were applicable, not section 80E, and the facts and assessment years involved were different. 3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections: The court emphasized that sections 80A(1), 80A(2), and 80B(5) are declaratory and apply to all sections under Chapter VI-A. The deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I must be computed after setting off losses from other units and brought-forward losses. The court referenced several judgments, including CIT v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd., CIT v. Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd., and Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, to support this interpretation. The court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was erroneous and set aside its order, restoring the Assessing Officer's and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decisions.
|
