1997 (10) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of sections 80AB and 80B(5) while computing deductions u/s 80HH and 80-I.
2. Order of allowing deductions u/s 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB.
3. Taxability of power subsidy as a capital receipt or revenue receipt u/s 28(iv).

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of sections 80AB and 80B(5) while computing deductions u/s 80HH and 80-I:
The Tribunal held that sections 80AB and 80B(5) are not applicable while computing deductions u/s 80HH and 80-I. However, the High Court observed that sections 80HH(1) and 80-I(1) allow deductions from "gross total income," which is defined u/s 80B(5) as the total income computed before making any deductions under Chapter VI-A. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd., which emphasized that deductions under Chapter VI-A should be computed after calculating the "gross total income." Therefore, the High Court concluded that sections 80HH and 80-I must be read along with sections 80AB and 80B(5), and deductions should be allowed after computing the "gross total income."

Issue 2: Order of allowing deductions u/s 80HH, 80-I, and 32AB:
The Tribunal directed that deductions u/s 80HH and 80-I should be allowed before deductions u/s 32AB. The High Court, however, found that deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I should be computed after other deductions, including those u/s 32AB, are made. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in H. H. Sir Rama Varma v. CIT and CIT v. P. K. Jhaveri, which supported the principle that deductions under Chapter VI-A should be calculated on the net profits after other deductions are made. Thus, the High Court held that the Assessing Officer's computation, which allowed deductions u/s 80HH and 80-I after deductions u/s 32AB, was justified.

Issue 3: Taxability of power subsidy as a capital receipt or revenue receipt u/s 28(iv):
The Tribunal held that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed u/s 28(iv). The High Court agreed, noting that the subsidy was granted under a scheme to promote industrial development in backward areas and was intended as an incentive for capital investment rather than an addition to profits. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd., which held that government subsidies given as incentives for setting up industries in backward areas should not be deducted from the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The High Court concluded that the power subsidy did not arise out of normal business activity and should be treated as a capital receipt, thus not taxable.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the first two questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that sections 80HH and 80-I must be computed after deductions u/s 32AB. The third question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the power subsidy is a capital receipt and not taxable.