TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents : Ms Kavita Jha Sh Vaibhav Kulkarni ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) 1. The revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 13.06.2008 in ITA No.3116/(ASR)/2004. 2. The appeal was disposed of on an earlier occasion, on 01.02.2011, on the basis of a direction to the revenue to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) again by reframing the questions urged. The order permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, ITA Nos.1319-21/2009 and permitted the revenue to amend the questions of law. It is in these circumstances that the present common appeal has been filed. 3. The revenue urges the following questions of law in support of the present appeal, st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the profit of two profit making industrial units only and holding that loss of third unit is to be ignored? (h) Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in law and on facts in holding sale of scrap is not to be included in total turnover while computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act? (i) Whether order passed by the Ld. ITAT is perverse in law and on merits? (j) The Hon ble Court may kindly allow the appellant to amend and modify question of law suggested above and or formulate new/additional questions of law. 4. The Court has considered the submissions and is of the opinion that having regard to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in ITA 30/2001 dated 15.04.2010 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd), question nos.(c), (d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions cited by the revenue - Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (Income-tax) and another 2008 (299) ITR 444; Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2009 (317) ITR 218 (SC) and further the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dewan Kraft Systems P. Ltd. 297 ITR 305 (Del). 6. The Allahabad High Court thereafter held as follows: We have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court and the decision of the Delhi High Court referred herein above. It is not the case of the assessing authority that the gross income of the Company was nil. From perusal of the income disclosed to all the three units it appears that the gross income was not nil and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at under Section 80-I(6) of the Act for the purposes of calculating the deduction, the loss sustained in one of the units, cannot be taken into account because sub-section (6) of the Act contemplates that only the profits shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income. Therefore from the decision of the Apex Court, two principle of laws emerges - one for the purposes of computation of gross total income the losses of other units are to be taken into account but for the purposes of calculating the deduction of industrial undertaking, the loss sustained in another unit cannot be taken into account and only the profit shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income of that unit. In this view of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
