9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 36(1)(viii) ? This question is really concluded against the Revenue by the decisions in the assessee's own cases in I.T.R. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1985, and I.T.R. No. 68 of 1989, pertaining to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. In answering those references, this court had followed the decision in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 323 as also the decision in I.T.R. Nos. 205 to 208 of 1984 ( subsequently reported in CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (No. 2) [1990] 182 ITR 67 ). The decision in the first of these cases, namely, Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation's case [1989] 180 ITR 323 (Ker), was approved and followed in CIT v. Ker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Corporation v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 206 besides with reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Finance Act, 1985. So far as the first ground is concerned, viz., that the decision of the Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co.'s case [1978] 113 ITR 84 (SC) justifies a further look into the question, it does not appeal to us. In fact, the first attempt made by the Revenue to reconsider the decision in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 323 (Ker) was with reference to this case and this court dealt with the matter afresh with reference to the contentions raised by the Revenue, but reaffirmed its earlier decision in Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of the point, the Bench refused to accept the Karnataka decision as correct besides holding that the Finance Act, 1985, was clarificatory and not amendatory. The Bench observed as follows ( at page 828 ) : " The opening part of section 2 which contains various definitions clearly provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, different words and expressions will have the meanings given in that section. The definition of 'total income' in section 2(45) has to be given the meaning as defined unless the context otherwise requires. Now, when we come to section 36(1)(viii), it is not possible to read the expression 'total income' used therein to mean total income computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. As already observed above, for the purpose of working out deduction under section 36(1)(viii) total income can only mean total income computed after taking into consideration deductions admissible under all the provisions except section 36(1)(viii) and Chapter VI-A. From the formula adopted by the Tribunal which was approved by the Karnataka High Court, it is clear that, initially, deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was worked out by applying the appropriate percentage to total income computed before deduction under that clause and Chapter VI-A. Once that is done, as already observed, the provision gets exhausted and there is no question of again reducing the total income by such deduction and again applying the requisite or appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
