2015 (10) TMI 823 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80-IA - Held that - The business undertaking of the assessee is wind mill power generation/hosiery goods, etc., and it has claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year in question and for the subsequent years as well. Having exercised its option and its losses have been set off already against other income of the business enterprise, the assessee in this appeal falls within the parameters of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. There appears to be no distinction on facts in relation to the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills case (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court). - Decided in favour of the assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of previous judicial decisions to the present case.
3. Interpretation of "initial assessment year" and its implications.
4. Treatment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation for deduction purposes.
5. Relevance of the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Claim Deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act:

The core issue in these appeals is whether the respondents/assessees are entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The court examined the provisions of Section 80-IA and determined that the respondents/assessees are indeed entitled to such deductions. The court emphasized that Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act provides for profit-linked incentives, and deductions under Sections 80I, 80IA, and 80IB should be computed without reopening losses and other deductions set off in previous years.

2. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions to the Present Case:

The court referred to its previous decision in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs Asst. CIT [2012) 340 ITR 477], which had already settled the issue in favor of the assessees. The court noted that the Revenue had appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeals were still pending. The court reiterated the principles established in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills, emphasizing that once losses and other deductions have been set off against the income of previous years, they should not be reopened for the purpose of computing current year income under Section 80I or 80IA.

3. Interpretation of "Initial Assessment Year" and Its Implications:

The court clarified the interpretation of "initial assessment year" as used in sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA. It highlighted that the term "initial assessment year" is different from "beginning from the year" referred to in sub-section (2). The court explained that the "initial assessment year" is the year in which the assessee opts to start claiming the deduction, and only the losses from this year onward should be considered for set-off purposes. Losses from years prior to the initial assessment year, which have already been set off, should not be brought forward.

4. Treatment of Losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation for Deduction Purposes:

The court emphasized that losses and unabsorbed depreciation from years prior to the initial assessment year, which have already been set off against other income, should not be notionally brought forward for the purpose of computing deductions under Section 80-IA. The court cited the decision in CIT v. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. [2004) 271 ITR 311 (Raj)] to support this view, stating that reopening previously set-off losses is not required for computing current income under Section 80-I or 80-IA.

5. Relevance of the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980:

The court addressed the Revenue's reliance on the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, which suggested that losses and deductions from previous years should be considered when computing deductions under Section 80-IA. The court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the statutory provisions do not mandate the reopening of set-off losses for the purpose of computing deductions under Section 80-IA. The court concluded that the fiction created by sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA is limited to treating the eligible business as the only source of income for the relevant assessment years and does not extend to bringing forward previously set-off losses.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessees. It held that the assessees are entitled to claim deductions under Section 80-IA without reopening losses and other deductions set off in previous years. The court's decision was consistent with its previous rulings in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills and other related cases, and it found no compelling reason to take a different view. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.

← Previous Next →