9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 62 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80-I - disallowance as per prohibition contained in sub-section 2 of Section 801 - M/s AA Alloys Ltd. a limited company, got amalgamated with the assessee company - Held that - Both the revenue and the assessee have placed reliance on the decision in the case of SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE 1990 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT which only supports the view canvassed by the assessee and not as canvassed by the revenue. Moreover, in the present case, the income is only of the very assessee and not of the other company namely M/s AA Alloys Ltd., as the said company ceased to be in existence as on 1-4-1994 and there is no income attributable to this company after this date, but industrial dealing part of the assessee company and its profits and gains are to be examined and brought to tax only in the hands of the respondent-assessee company and therefore the assessee while can claim benefit of Section 80-1 , if otherwise eligible, unless it is hit by non-fulfilment of any of the requirement in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 80-I. The amalgamation does not come within the scope of transfer as defined in Section 2(47) and such being the view taken not only by this court, but Madras High Court and also the Supreme Court, there is no question of holding that the assessee dis entitles the benefit of Section 80-I - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction for profits and gains from industrial undertakings. - Whether amalgamation of companies constitutes a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. - Claim of deduction over industrial undertaking taken over from another company. Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 80-I: The case involved an appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, questioning the correctness of the Appellate Authorities' decision allowing the assessee to claim a deduction over an industrial undertaking taken over from another company. The dispute centered around the interpretation of sub-section 2 of Section 80-I, which outlines conditions for claiming deductions related to industrial undertakings. 2. Amalgamation and Transfer: The assessing officer contended that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80-I due to the restriction in clause-(ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 80-I, which prohibits the formation of a new business by the transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. However, the assessee argued that the transaction was an amalgamation, not a transfer, and therefore not subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80-I. 3. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation: The appellate commissioner and the income tax appellate tribunal supported the assessee's position, emphasizing that amalgamation does not amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act. The tribunal cited a previous judgment to reinforce this interpretation. Both parties relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD case, but the court found that the judgment supported the assessee's view. 4. Decision and Ruling: After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the High Court upheld the view that amalgamation does not constitute a transfer as defined in the Act. As the income belonged solely to the assessee company post-amalgamation, the court ruled that the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80-I of the Act, provided all other conditions were met. The court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessee was not disqualified from availing the deduction under Section 80-I. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Section 80-I in the context of amalgamation and transfer of industrial undertakings, emphasizing that amalgamation does not trigger the restrictions outlined in the Act regarding deductions.
|
