MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3, MADURAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA must be computed independently for each eligible undertaking, without setting off losses from one unit against profits of another. The AO and CIT(A) erred in their computation.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA for its eligible units. The Assessing Officer (AO) recomputed the deduction by setting off losses from one eligible unit against profits of another eligible unit. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether losses from one eligible unit can be set off against profits of another eligible unit while computing deduction under Section 80IA.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.290 citing391 ITR 274 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, dated 06.03.2020, and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) Computation of Total Income for the Asst. Year 2014-15 is as follows: -
Income from Chlorate Division Rs. 4,50,04,103 Income from Gas Power Division -1 Rs. 8,28,95,617 Loss in Gas Power Division -2 Rs. (-)14,25,456 Income from Business Rs. 12,64,74,264 Income from Other sources Interest on Bank deposit & 244A Int. Rs. 1,61,91,686 Gross Total Income Rs. 14,26,65,950 LESS Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) 10th year Gas Power Rs. 8,28,95,617 Div.1 Taxable Income Rs. 5,97,70,333
As the loss of Rs.14,25,456/- incurred in Gas Power Division -2 is already deducted to arrive at the Gross Total Income it need not be deducted once again from the income of the units which are eligible for deduction u/s.80 1A. i.e., the provision of section 71 is already complied with. (306 ITR (AT) page 298).
2) The Supreme Court clearly held that while computing the quantum of deduction u/s.80I(6) the Assessing Officer, no doubt has to treat the profits derived from an industrial undertaking as the only source of income in order to arrive at the deduction under Chapter VIA. The Supreme Court also held that under section 80 I(6) for the purposes of calculating the deduction, the loss sustained in one of the units is not be taken into account because subsection (6) contemplates that only the profits shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income’.
3) While interpreting the provisions of law, no extended meaning to the intent of the legislature can be given. Thus the observation of the CIT(A) that 'the claim of the appellant is against the principles of accounting cannot be accepted' is unwarranted unjustified and unlawful.
It is prayed that the connected papers may kindly be looked into and justice rendered. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, withdraw any grounds of appeal at any time up to the hearing of the appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Domestic Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturer of Potassium chlorate generating gas power and steam power, filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 26.09.2014 admitting total income of Rs.5,97,70,330/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and book profit of Rs.12,80,96,813/- u/s.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act"). The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 21.12.2016 and determined total income of Rs.6,97,22,670/- by re- computing deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, by setting off loss of one eligible unit to profit of another eligible unit. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeed. The Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 06.03.2020, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the AO towards re-computation of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act.
None appeared for the assessee. However, the assessee has filed written submissions, which has been taken on record. We have heard Ld.DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the sole dispute in appeal filed by the assessee is with regard to computation of eligible profit for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. The AO has allowed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, by setting off loss of one eligible unit to profit of another eligible unit and quantified net profit eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.
Yakogawa India Ltd. reported in [2017] 391 ITR 274 (SC), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that while computing the quantum of deduction u/s.80 I(6) of the Act, the AO, no doubt, has to treat the profits derived from an industrial undertaking as the only source of income in order to arrive at deduction under Chapter VI of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that u/s.80 I(6) of the Act, for the purpose of calculating deduction, loss sustained in one of the units is not to be taken into account, because, sub-section (6) contemplates that only the profit shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the stage of deduction of profits & gains of the business of an eligible undertaking has to be made independently, and therefore, immediately after the stage of determination of profits & gains, and therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO & the Ld.CIT(A) completely erred in re-computing deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, by setting off loss of one eligible unit to profit of another eligible unit. Hence, we direct the AO to allow deduction claimed u/s.80IA of the Act, without setting off loss of another eligible unit.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs M/S. Atria Power Corporation Private…Bangalore12 Oct 2021Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IA is to be computed on the profits of the eligible unit without adjusting losses from other units. It also confirmed that deduction is not limited to business income and ...
- Sureprep (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO RG 8(3)(2), MumbaiMumbai3 Nov 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the period of ten years for Section 10A deduction begins from the assessment year the undertaking starts manufacturing, not when services commence. It also addressed the treatment of unabsorbed dep...
- Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT, MumbaiMumbai8 Mar 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the sales tax incentive was a capital receipt, not taxable as revenue. It also decided that the market value for domestic transfer pricing should not change based on the Cal...
- Genesys International Corporation Ltd… vs Dy CIT 9(3)(2), MumbaiMumbai4 Mar 2020Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in setting off losses of non-eligible units against profits of eligible units before allowing deduction under Section 10AA. The deduction under Section 10AA s...
- C.J.Jewelleries Private Limted, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income 5(1)(2)…Mumbai28 Aug 2019Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in setting off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation before calculating the Section 10A deduction. The deduction should be computed independently on th...
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026