DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S UNICITA CONSULTING PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 938/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 April 2017AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10A is to be computed independently for the eligible undertaking, without considering losses from other units. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The core issue was whether losses from a non-STPI unit should be set off against profits of an STPI unit before claiming deduction under Section 10A.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct stage for setting off losses of non-STPI units against STPI unit profits when calculating Section 10A deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dt.29.02.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The revenue has raised the following grounds :

3.

The only issue arises in this appeal by the revenue is regarding setting off of losses of non-STPI unit against profits of the STPI Unit before allowing the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

4.

We have heard the learned D.R. as well as learned A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. 341 ITR 385 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble

1.

Supreme Court vide decision reported in 391 ITR 274 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras 15 to 17 as under :

“ 15. Sub-section 4 of Section 10A which provides for pro rata exemption, necessarily involving deduction of the profits arising out of domestic sales, is one instance of deduction provided by the amendment. Profits of an eligible unit pertaining to domestic sales would have to enter into the computation under the head "profits and gains from business" in Chapter IV and denied the benefit of deduction. The provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 10A, as amended by the Finance Act of 2003, granting the benefit of adjustment of losses and unabsorbed depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter VI of the Act can be understand by acknowledging that any such reference or mention would have been a repetition of what has already been provided in Section 10A. The provisions of Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act providing for somewhat similar deductions would be wholly irrelevant and redundant if deductions under Section 10A were to be made at the stage of operation of Chapter VI of the Act. The retention of the said provisions of the Act i.e. Section 80HHC and 80HHE, despite the amendment of Section 10A, in our view, indicates that some additional benefits to eligible Section 10A units, not contemplated by Sections 80HHC and 80HHE, was intended by the legislature. Such a benefit can only be understood by a legislative mandate to understand that the stages for working out the deductions under Section 10A and 80HHC and 80HHE are substantially different. This is the next aspect of the case which we would now like to turn to.

16.

From a reading of the relevant provisions of Section 10A it is more than clear to us that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee. The benefit of deduction is given by the Act to the individual undertaking and resultantly flows to the assessee. This is also more than clear from the contemporaneous Circular No. 794 dated 9.8.2000 which states in paragraph 15.6 that, "The export turnover and the total turnover for the purposes of sections 10A and 10B shall be of the undertaking located in specified zones or 100% Export Oriented Undertakings, as the case may be, and this shall not have any material relationship with the other business of the assessee outside these zones or units for the purposes of this provision."

17.

If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (1A) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit of deduction is the eligible undertaking and that is also how the contemporaneous Circular of the department (No. 794 dated 09.08.2000) understood the situation, it is only logical and natural that the stage of deduction of the profits and gains of the business of an eligible

undertaking has to be made independently and, therefore, immediately after the stage of determination of its profits and gains. At that stage the aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70, 72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The deductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. The somewhat discordant use of the expression "total income of the assessee" in Section 10A has already been dealt with earlier and in the overall scenario unfolded by the provisions of Section 10A the aforesaid discord can be reconciled by understanding the expression "total income of the assessee" in Section 10A as 'total income of the undertaking'.”

In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the order of CIT (Appeals) qua this issue.

5.

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of April, 2017.

More judgments on Section 10A

All 2,147 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →