Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Karnataka High Court restrains Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India from enrolling candidates for its courses
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court

CIT vs. M/s Atul Intermediates (Gujarat High Court)
April, 09th 2014

The effect of s. 80-IA(9) is that s. 80-IA deduction has to be reduced for s. 80HHC deduction in all cases and not only when the combined deduction exceeds the profits

The Gujarat High Court had to consider the controversy whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, ignoring the deduction already claimed and allowed u/s 80IA of the Act, unless and until the combined effect of the deductions flowing from both the sections is to exceed the profit and gain of the eligible business of the undertaking or enterprise. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Rogini Garments 294 ITR (AT) 15 (Chennai) (SB) & Hindustan Mint and Agro Products 315 ITR 401 (Delhi) (SB) as well as the High Courts in Great Eastern Exports (Del) 332 ITR 14, Olam Exports 332 ITR 40 (Ker) & Broadway Overseas 41 taxmann.com 75 (P&H) decided in favour of the department and held that if an assessee has claimed deduction of profit or gains u/s 80IB, deduction to that extent is not to be allowed u/s 80HHC. However, the High Courts in Associated Capsules 332 ITR 42 (Bom) & Millipore India 341 ITR 219 (Kar) decided in favour of the assessee and held that the effect of s. 80-IA(9) was only to ensure that the aggregate deduction did not exceed the profits of the eligible business. HELD by the High Court deciding in favour of the department:

Sub-section (9) of s. 80IA is aimed at restricting the successive claims of deduction of the same profit or gain under different provisions contained in sub-chapter C of Chapter VI of the Act. This provision, therefore, necessarily impacts other deduction provisions including s. 80HHC of the Act. Nothing contained in s. 80HHC suggests that the deduction provided therein was immune from any outside influence or that the provision was impregnable by any other statute or enactment. Accepting any such theory would lead to incongruous results. Even the assessee concedes that sub-section (9) of s. 80IA would operate as to limiting the combined deductions to a maximum of the profits and gains from an eligible business of the undertaking or enterprise. If s. 80HHC contained a protective shell making it immune from any outside influence, even this effect of sub-section (9) of s. 80IA could not be applied. This would completely render the provisions of sub-section (9) of s. 80IA redundant and meaningless.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting