2016 (6) TMI 850 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to deduction under Section 80 IA without setting off the losses/unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the windmill - Held that - 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 2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court .- Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction under Section 80 IA without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation, interpretation of the term "initial assessment year" in Section 80 IA (5), and the option for the assessee to choose the first assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80-IA.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the entitlement to deduction under Section 80 IA without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation, following a specific case law pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court noted the representation that it consistently follows a particular decision and that the challenge to it is pending before the Supreme Court. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular clarifying the term "initial assessment year" in Section 80 IA (5) to address conflicting interpretations by Assessing Officers. The circular emphasized the assessee's option to choose the initial assessment year for claiming deduction for a specified number of consecutive years.

2. The High Court referred to previous judgments to support its decision, including the interpretation of the term "initial assessment year" and the impact of pending litigation on the allowability of deduction under Section 80 IA. It highlighted that once losses and deductions are set off against the income in a previous year, they should not be reopened for current year income computation under Section 80-I and 80-IA. The court also noted that the effect of pending appeals should not reverse established precedents unless explicitly done so by a higher authority.

3. The material on record revealed that the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly upheld the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal)'s decision based on the judgment of the Madras High Court in a specific case. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the appellate authority's view that any reversal by the Supreme Court in the future would prompt suitable remedial action by the Assessing Officer. The High Court found no valid grounds to reverse the Tribunal's orders, ultimately dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee based on the interpretation of the law and established precedents.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of following established legal interpretations and precedents until explicitly overturned by a higher authority. The clarification provided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the term "initial assessment year" in Section 80 IA (5) played a significant role in resolving conflicting interpretations by Assessing Officers.