COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. G H C L LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that it found no illegality in the impugned order passed by the ITAT. It also concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court reasoned that the ITAT's decision was based on established Apex Court precedents, specifically mentioning *Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.* and *CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech. System Pvt. Ltd.*, which directed the calculation of Section 80HHC deduction on the basis of adjusted book profit under Section 115JA. The ITAT had followed these decisions and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for recalculation after affording an opportunity of hearing. The High Court found the appeal to be devoid of merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-II) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The core issue revolves around the method of calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had directed the Assessing Officer to compute this deduction based on the adjusted book profit under Section 115JA, rather than the profit calculated under the regular provisions of law. This direction was based on previous Apex Court decisions. The High Court heard arguments from both the Revenue and the Assessee (GHCL Ltd.).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and fact by directing the Assessing Officer to process the deduction under Section 80HHC on the basis of adjusted book profit under Section 115JA, instead of profit computed under regular provisions of law, thereby restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the ITAT's decision, which the High Court is reviewing, relied on Apex Court decisions in *Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.* and *CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech. System Pvt. Ltd.*, holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC should be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit under Section 115JA. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its senior counsel Mr. M.R. Bhatt, argued that the ITAT had erred in law and fact. The proposed substantial question of law framed by the Revenue highlights their disagreement with the ITAT's direction to use adjusted book profit under Section 115JA for calculating the Section 80HHC deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TAXAP/395/2012 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 395 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s) Versus G H C L LTD - Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance : Mr.M.R.Bhatt, Senior counsel with MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the Appellant. Mr.S.N.Soparkar, Senior Counsel with MRS SWATI SOPARKAR and Mr.Bandish Soparkar for the Opponent. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 19/07/2012
TAXAP/395/2012 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Mauna Bhatt appearing for the revenue and Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Swati Soparkar and Mr.Bandish Soparkar appearing for the assessee. 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed by the appellant on the following proposed substantial questions of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to process the deduction under Section 80HHC to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit under Section 115JA and not on the basis of profit under regular provisions of law applicable to the computation of profit and gains of the business and thereby restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer ? 3. The Tribunal, after relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Syncome Formulations (I)Ltd. (2007) 106 ITD 193, wherein the Apex Court has held that the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit under section 115JA and not on the basis of the profit computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gain of business. Further the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech.System Pvt.Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 593 in which it is directed to the Assessing Officer that deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80HHC be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit under section 115JA and not on the basis of the profit under regular provisions of law applicable to computation
TAXAP/395/2012 3/3 JUDGMENT of profits and gain of business. The decision of the Apex Court has been followed and the Tribunal has passed an order on 30.12.2011 and restored the file to the Assessing Officer and direction has been issued to the Assessing Officer to compute deduction under section 80HHC by following decision of the Apex Court in Bhari Information Tech.System Pvt.Ltd. (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal nor we find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. The proposed question does not raise any question of law. The Appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (V.M.SAHAI,J) (N.V.ANJARIA,J) ***vcdarji
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026