2019 (2) TMI 1328 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80HHC and 80HHD - HELD THAT - As far as the questions pertaining to Sections 80HHC and 80HHD are concerned, they are covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in the same assessee s case and reported in EIH Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2011 (8) TMI 411 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT). As submitted on behalf of the assessee that on a special leave petition carried by the Revenue against such judgment, leave has been granted and the appeal is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Since the previous view of this Court is binding on a coordinate Bench and such view of this Court has not yet been upset by the Supreme Court, the legal issues pertaining to Sections 80HHC and 80HHD of the Act are answered in consonance with the law as declared in the previous judgment pertaining to the assessee as noted above. Chapter VIA double deduction - whether an assessee is entitled to claim deductions under divers provisions in respect of the same income, if the assessee qualifies under the various provisions - HELD THAT - The two provisions involved are Sections 80HHD and 80-IA of the Act. A previous view of the Supreme Court was that if the assessee is entitled to claim on more than one head, the assessee must be left free to do so, subject to the deduction not being more than the income earned under such head. However, the same issue has been referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration in the judgment ACIT vs. Micro Labs Ltd.(2015 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT).

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Sections 80HHC and 80HHD of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act.

Analysis:

The High Court of Calcutta addressed several legal issues concerning Sections 80HHC and 80HHD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Chapter VIA of the Act. The Court noted that the questions related to Sections 80HHC and 80HHD were previously decided in a judgment reported at 338 ITR 503. It was highlighted that the previous view of the Court remained binding on a coordinate Bench until overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the legal issues regarding Sections 80HHC and 80HHD were to be answered in line with the law established in the earlier judgment.

Regarding the matter of double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the Court deliberated on whether an assessee could claim deductions under different provisions for the same income. Specifically, the issue revolved around Sections 80HHD and 80-IA of the Act. The Court referred to a previous Supreme Court ruling that allowed an assessee to claim deductions under multiple heads, as long as the total deduction did not exceed the income earned under each head. However, the Court acknowledged that this issue had been referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration in a judgment reported at 380 ITR 1.

While several other grounds were raised in the appeal, the Court emphasized that only legal questions could be considered under Section 260A of the Act. The Court refrained from delving into factual findings and limited the analysis to legal questions covered by previous judgments. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal by following the precedent set in the judgment reported at 338 ITR 503 and directed the Assessing Officer to determine the issue of double deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act in accordance with any forthcoming Supreme Court ruling resulting from the reference in the judgment reported at 380 ITR 1. The Court concluded the judgment by stating that there would be no order as to costs.