ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S KHIVRAJ MOTORS, BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that losses from earlier years, which were already set off against other income, cannot be notionally brought forward. The deduction under Section 80IA is to be allowed for the eligible business profits, and losses within the tax holiday period can only be carried forward and set off against the profits of the same undertaking.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed a deduction under Section 80IA for the assessee's windmill division. The assessee had previously set off losses from this division against other business income in earlier years.
What were the issues?
Whether losses from earlier years, already set off against other income, can be carried forward and set off against profits eligible for Section 80IA deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT213 citing231 CTR 368 · 2012 · HC
- CIT v. Anil H. Lad20 citing102 DTR 241 · 2014 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member
This is a departmental appeal. M/s. Khivraj Motors filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 1,92,92,870/-. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order by determining the total taxable income at Rs.3,09,83,810/- by disallowing the deduction under section 80IA amounting to Rs.1,16,90,948/- and disallowing 20% of petrol, marketing sales promotion and telephone expenditure.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out before the AO the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 231 CTR 368, in support of the claim of & 1052/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 5 deduction under section 80IA. But the AO dismissed the Assessee’s contention.
On further appeal before CIT(A) it was submitted that there is no dispute that the windmills fulfilled the requisite conditions prescribed in the Act, and the profits of the windmills were eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and that there is also no dispute that the losses in the wind mill division incurred during A. Yrs. 2005-06 to 2009-10 were adjusted and set off against other business income of the appellant in such assessment years. The details were filed by the appellant as under: Assessment Year Losses (Rs.) 2005-2006 1,48,60,154.20 2006-2007 2,89,29,020.00 2007-2008 1,28,14,240.20 2008-2009 2,15,76,365.20 2009-2010 1,67,50,540.60 Total 9,49,30,319.00
The CIT (A) held that the decision in the case of M/s. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., (Supra) 340 ITR 477 which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri. Anil H. Lad 102 DTR Karnataka 241 would apply to the present case. The CIT (A) held that when the assessee exercises the option, the only losses of the years beginning from initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward and no losses of earlier years which were already set off against the income of the assessee. Further looking forward to a period of ten years from the initial assessment is contemplated and does not allow the Revenue to look backward and find out if there is any loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even though the same were set off against other income of the assessee and the set off against the current income of the & 1052/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 5 eligible business. The CIT(A) held that once the set off is taken place in earlier year against the other income of the assessee, the Revenue cannot rework the set off amount and bring it notionally. Aggrieved with the orders of the CIT (A) the department is in appeal before us and has filed the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs. 1,16,90,948/- u/s 80IA in A.Y. 2010-11 being the initial assessment year by relying on the order of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., and the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri. Anil H. Lad and the decision ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Excel Cropcare Ltd without appreciating that the relied upon orders of the High Courts has not been accepted and the SLP has been preferred against the said order. 3. The CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal without appreciating that the deduction u/s 80IA is on the profits of “eligible business” and that the provisions of Section 81IA have to be understood along with the provisions of sections 80B(5) and 80AB of the IT Act, 1961. 4. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.
& 1052/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 5 5. We find that assessment year 2010-11 is the “initial assessment year” of the claim of deduction under section 80IA for the windmill division or undertaking of the assessee, consisting of four windmills, as per the option exercised by the assessee. The profits of the undertaking shall be accordingly eligible for the said deduction for 9 more succeeding assessment years. It is only in case of loss in business of the eligible undertaking during the tax holiday period of 10 years beginning AY 2010-11 that the same can be carried forward and set off against the profits of the undertaking.
We respectfully follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Shri. Anil H. Lad 102 DTR 241 and dismiss the departmental appeal. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
ITR No. 1052/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2011-12.
The claim requested by the Assessee for deduction under section 80IA is to be allowed, as the claim is for the second year under the provisions of section 80IA. Therefore, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
In the result, the departmental appeal for both years are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of October, 2016.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1… vs Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, NagpurNagpur28 May 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Anil H. Lad and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had correctly claimed the deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal agreed that the CBDT circular clarified the 'initial assessment year' and that no una...
- Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, MumbaiMumbai16 Feb 2018Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Anil H. Lad and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction under Section 80IA by following jurisdictional High Court decisions. It also confirmed that carbon credit sales were capital receipts and that no interest di...
- DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs Garden Court Distilleries P.Ltd, MumbaiMumbai7 Feb 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Anil H. Lad and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee demonstrated that interest was for business purposes and had sufficient own funds. It also upheld the allowance of deduction under Sec...
- The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs M/S. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., AhmedabadAhmedabad26 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Anil H. Lad and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, with no permanent establishment or business connection in India, is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS was requir...
- Gamzen Plast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO 6(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai4 Oct 2016Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Anil H. Lad and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that losses from earlier years, which have already been set off against the income of a non-eligible unit, cannot be notionally carried forward and set off against the profits of an eligible unit under ...
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026