9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 826 - HC - Income TaxSet off of business losses - selection of effective date of amalgamation - Held that - In view of the provisions Section 79 of the Income Tax Act we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the CIT(A)to allow relief of set off of business losses considering the date of allotment as the actual date of scheme of amalgamation. - Decided in favour of assessee. Deduction u/s.80HHC - Tribunal considered the current year s profit without reducing therefrom the unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance - Held that - As decided in CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. 2007 (5) TMI 194 - SUPREME Court Section 80AB of the Income - tax Act 1961 specified that profits are those as determined for the purpose of the Act will apply for determining profits from export business for the purpose of the deduction under Section 80HHC. In determining business profits for the deduction under Section 80HHC the unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under section 72 should be set off. - Decided in favour of revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Set off of business losses considering the date of allotment as the actual date of the scheme of amalgamation. 2. Computation of deduction under Section 80HHC considering the current year's profit without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. Issue 1: Set off of Business Losses Considering the Date of Allotment as the Actual Date of the Scheme of Amalgamation The appellant-revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision that allowed the set-off of business losses by considering the date of allotment as the actual date of the scheme of amalgamation. The Court examined Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, which specifies that no loss incurred in any year prior to the previous year shall be carried forward and set off against the income of the previous year unless certain conditions regarding shareholding are met. The CIT(A) observed that the actual date of allotment was undisputed, and the issue was about the effective date of allotment. The CIT(A) noted that the beneficial holding of shares should remain with the same set of shareholders, and the actual date of allotment was not in dispute. The CIT(A) further reasoned that the retrospective effect given to the High Court's order only created a right to get shares allotted, not the right of being a member from the back date. Thus, the shares did not exist on the last day of the previous year, and the question of beneficial interest in the shares did not arise. The Court agreed with the CIT(A) and concluded that the Tribunal was correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. Issue 2: Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC Considering the Current Year's Profit Without Reducing Unabsorbed Depreciation and Unabsorbed Investment Allowance The appellant-revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s order, which directed to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC considering the current year's profit without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The respondent-assessee argued that the issue was already concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd., which held that Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act specifies that profits determined for the purpose of the Act will apply for determining profits from export business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. The unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under Section 72 should be set off in determining business profits for the deduction under Section 80HHC. The Court, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, concluded that the Tribunal was not right in confirming the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal were modified accordingly. The question regarding the set-off of business losses was answered in favor of the assessee, and the question regarding the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC was answered in favor of the revenue.
|
