COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6758/2001Supreme Court[2007] 7 S.C.R. 1917 May 2007Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: ASHOK BHAN, DALVEER BHANDARI COMMISSIONER OF5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune) appealed against the High Court of Bombay's order dated 24th July 2000, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The High Court had framed two questions of law and decided both against the Revenue. The first question concerned the applicability of Section 80-AB to Section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the second related to whether unabsorbed business losses from earlier years under Section 72 should be set off against profits under Section 80-HHC. The High Court held Section 80-HHC to be independent of Section 80-AB and that prior year losses could not be set off. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court of Kerala had taken a similar view in CIT v. T.C. Usha.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay. The Court relied on its own decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, which had taken a contrary view to that of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that Section 80-AB, by virtue of its overriding effect, governs Section 80-HHC. Consequently, the computation of income under Section 80-HHC must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which includes taking into consideration both profits and losses. Therefore, unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under Section 72 are to be set off against profits earned from exports. The Court explicitly stated that the decisions of the Bombay High Court (in the present case) and the Kerala High Court (in CIT v. T.C. Usha) did not lay down the correct law. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 80-AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be applied to Section 80-HHC of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether, in the determination of business profit under Section 80-HHC, unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under Section 72 of the Act should be set off? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions (as inferred from the judgment's discussion of the High Court's decision and relied-upon cases): - Section 80-HHC is independent of Section 80-AB and not controlled by it. - Unabsorbed business losses of earlier years could not be set off against profits from exports. - The High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. and the High Court of Kerala in CIT v. T.C. Usha held that Section 80-HHC is a self-contained code and that carry-forward losses could not be set off for computing profits for Section 80-HHC, and that profits had to be computed under Section 29, with Section 72 not being applicable. Revenue's Contentions (as inferred from the judgment's discussion of the Supreme Court's decision): - Section 80-HHC is not independent of Section 80-AB and is governed by it. - Losses were to be set off against profits earned from export of self-manufactured goods. - The Supreme Court, in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, overruled the decisions of the Bombay and Kerala High Courts, holding they did not lay down the correct law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 72,Section 80-AB,Section 80-HHC,Section 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-} COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE A v. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD. MAY 17, 2007 [ASHOK BHAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B ~ Income Tax Act, 1961; Ss. 72, 80-AB & 80-HHC: Section 80 HHC-Profit-Adjustment of unabsorbed business losses of c earlier years therefrom in term of s. 72 of the Act-Applicability of s. 80-AB of the Act-Affirming the judgment of the Tribunal, High Court decided the question against the Revenue-On appeal, Held: A contrary view was held by this Court in the decided case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, Mumbai overruling the judgment impugned in the present case-Under the circumstances impugned judgment set aside. D ~ The question arose for determination before this Court in the present appeal filed by the Revenue was as to whether the High Court was right in affirming the decision of the Tribunal by answering the questions framed by it against the Revenue as to whether Section 80-AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be applied to Section 80-HHC of the Act and whether, in determination E of business profit under Section 80HHC of the Act, the unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years under Section 72 o

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 72

All 386 judgments and leading authorities on Section 72 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →