TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch income has not suffered tax on account of the deduction u/s 10B ? - Held that: - We are unable to find any statutory support to the plea of the Revenue. It is a well-settled rule of law that where language is clear and not capable of any other construction then the same has to be applied. In this context, the assessee had placed reliance on the parity of reasoning laid down in the case of Elphinstone Spinning And Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1955 (9) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) held that the claim of the Revenue was unsustainable, as where the language is clear and not capable of any other construction, then however illogical the position, however absurd the result, however much the construction put may defeat the object of the Legislature, the statute must be construed according to the plain language used by the Legislature, and the more so, if that plain language supports the subject against the taxing department. Therefore, in conclusion, we uphold the plea of the assessee for deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act of a sum of ₹ 70,35,997/-. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1882/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - G S Pannu, AM And Sushma Chowla, JM,JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer has not disputed the aforesaid factual matrix but he has denied assessee's claim for deduction of ₹ 70,35,997/- in the year under consideration. The reasons advanced by the Assessing Officer was that though the assessee added back ₹ 70,35,997/- to its income in the preceding assessment year 2009-10 but the entire income of the assessee (inclusive of such add back) was allowed a deduction in terms of section 10B of the Act. In so far as the current assessment year is concerned, there is no claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the deduction of such amount cannot be allowed in this year on the basis of the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act because in the preceding assessment year the tax burden on the assessee qua the said amount was reduced to NIL on account of the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The CIT(A) has also affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer against which assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the sum and substance of the plea raised by the assessee is that having regard to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if the assessee does not pay the TDS deducted on an ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of, and to the extent of, such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Act for such assessment year and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business, as the case may be. The newly inserted provision in sub section (4) of sec 80A can be explained as under: 1. If the assessee claims deduction towards any amount of profits and gains of an unit or eligible business. 2. Such deduction is allowed under any of the specified section including sec 10B for any of the assessment yearthen then following consequences will follow that deduction in respect of and to the extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of the Act for such assessment year. The above amendment has been brought about to curb the claim of multiple deduction by the assessee, though sec 80IA(a) also controls double deduction. These sections are overlapping in nature however, sec 80A(4) has far greater reach. 4.3 In the present case the appellant has already been allowed deduction u/s 1GB on ₹ 59,43,736/- in respect of the business profits derived from EOU unit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment year 2009-10, the case of the Revenue is that the impugned sum cannot be allowed as a deduction in the current assessment year on an application of the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the Revenue, it would result in a double benefit to the assessee. Apart therefrom, reliance has been placed on section 80A(4) to support the denial of assessee's claim. The provisions of section 80A(4) of the Act, read as under :- 80A(4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec 10A or sec 10AA or sec 10B or Sec 10BA or in any provisions of Chapter under the heading C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes , where, in the case of an assessee, any amount of profits and gains of an undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business is claimed and allowed as a deduction under any of those provisions for any assessment year, deduction in respect of, and to the extent of, such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Act for such assessment year and shall in no case exceed the profits and gains of such undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business, as the case may be. 7. Section 80A(4) of the Act prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r under any provisions of Chapter VIA under the heading C.-Deductions in inspect of certain incomes in any assessment year, if a deduction in respect of same amount under any of the aforesaid has been allowed in the same assessment year ;(ii) the aggregate of the deductions under the various provisions referred to in (i) above, shall not exceed the profits and gains of the undertaking or unit or enterprise or eligible business, as the case may be; [underlined for emphasis by us] 8. Ostensibly, the present claim of the assessee in the current assessment year is for deduction of ₹ 70,35,997/- in terms of the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. There is no claim under any of the provisions covered in section 80A(4) of the Act. Therefore, invoking section 80A(4) of the Act in the present case to deny assessee's claim is anyway not justified. So however, even if for a moment, we accept the invoking section 80A(4) of the Act by the Revenue yet it would cover a situation if multiple deductions are claimed for same profits in the same assessment year. Ostensibly, that is not the case in the present situation because there is no multiple deductions claimed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
