Madras v. Canara Workshops P.Ltd.

161 ITR 320Supreme Court of India1986#2076 most cited

What is Madras v. Canara Workshops P.Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee carries on multiple industries, the profits from a profit-making industry cannot be reduced by losses from another industry for the purpose of calculating deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80E or Section 80IA.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Canara Workshops P.Ltd. · Supreme Court · 161 ITR 320 · Section 80E · Section 80IA · deduction · priority industries · loss in one industry · profit from another industry

Judgments citing Madras v. Canara Workshops P.Ltd.

Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3254/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ssed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observed as follows: “5. In the case of Commissioner of Income tax(Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops P.Ltd. Reported in 161 ITR 320, in the context of deductions provided under section 80E of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the merit earned by one industry not to be lost or diminished for loss by some other industry when assessee was carrying on two priority industries. It was held that loss in one industry is not to be set off against profits from the other and the dedu…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ssed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observed as follows: “5. In the case of Commissioner of Income tax(Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops P.Ltd. Reported in 161 ITR 320, in the context of deductions provided under section 80E of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the merit earned by one industry not to be lost or diminished for loss by some other industry when assessee was carrying on two priority industries. It was held that loss in one industry is not to be set off against profits from the other and the dedu…

The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/AHD/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ssed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observed as follows: “5. In the case of Commissioner of Income tax(Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops P.Ltd. Reported in 161 ITR 320, in the context of deductions provided under section 80E of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the merit earned by one industry not to be lost or diminished for loss by some other industry when assessee was carrying on two priority industries. It was held that loss in one industry is not to be set off against profits from the other and the dedu…

M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/AHD/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…ssed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observed as follows: “5. In the case of Commissioner of Income tax(Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops P.Ltd. Reported in 161 ITR 320, in the context of deductions provided under section 80E of the Act, the Supreme Court held that the merit earned by one industry not to be lost or diminished for loss by some other industry when assessee was carrying on two priority industries. It was held that loss in one industry is not to be set off against profits from the other and the dedu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…cannot be set off against the profits of eligible unit. The CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on CIT v. Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 463 (Del), CIT v. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 305 (Del) and CIT v. Canara Workshop (P) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 (SC) as well as other case laws. Thus, he observed that the assessee is maintaining project-wise P&L account as also books of account and has in fact submitted project-wise Form 10CCB and according to him, the AO was not justified in observing project-wise accounts were not available. It is also observed by the CIT(Appeals) that it is not necessa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Purvankara Projects Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…cannot be set off against the profits of eligible unit. The CIT(Appeals) placed reliance on CIT v. Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 463 (Del), CIT v. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 305 (Del) and CIT v. Canara Workshop (P) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 (SC) as well as other case laws. Thus, he observed that the assessee is maintaining project-wise P&L account as also books of account and has in fact submitted project-wise Form 10CCB and according to him, the AO was not justified in observing project-wise accounts were not available. It is also observed by the CIT(Appeals) that it is not necessa…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…ne eligible unit is required to be set-off against the profits of the other eligible undertaking or not. The Ld. AR pointed out that the aforesaid controversy came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd 161 ITR 320. In that case, the Court held that in computing the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80-E of the Act, the losses incurred by the assessee in a priority industry could not be set- off against the profits of another priority industry. The Court also referred with approval the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 609/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…by treating the cost of development of shrink wrap computer software as work in progress and therefore cannot set off the loss?” 163. The said substantial questions of law was considered by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 320 (SC) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 202 164. Following the said judgement in the assessee’s case itself in ITA 1395 of 2006 connected with…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Wipro Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 467/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

Section 143(3)

…by treating the cost of development of shrink wrap computer software as work in progress and therefore cannot set off the loss?” 163. The said substantial questions of law was considered by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 320 (SC) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. IT(TP)A Nos.99/Bang/2014, 398/Bang/2015, 222/Bang/2016, 492/Bang/2017, 2851/Bang/2-17, 3115/Bang/2018, 151/Bang/2014, 467/Bang/2015 & 609/Bang/2016 M/s. Wipro Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 202 164. Following the said judgement in the assessee’s case itself in ITA 1395 of 2006 connected with…

Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar RampurwalaFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 271(1)Section 80I

…6. In the case of Sriram Properties (P) Ltd (Supra), the Coordinate Bench at Chennai has held as under: "19. We are reminded of the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshop (P.) Ltd. [1986] 27 Taxman 262/161 ITR 320 in which the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of automobile spares. The products manufactured by it were covered by the list in the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act. During the relevant period, the assessee commenced another activity, that is the manufacture of alloy steels, which was also an industry covered in the Fifth Schedule. The…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5525/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ue whether deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act has to be allowed qua profits of the eligible undertaking(s) or the global profits of the assessee as a whole, is no longer res integra. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd.: 161 ITR 320 held that deduction under section 80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaki…

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5524/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ue whether deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act has to be allowed qua profits of the eligible undertaking(s) or the global profits of the assessee as a whole, is no longer res integra. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd.: 161 ITR 320 held that deduction under section 80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaki…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5492/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ue whether deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act has to be allowed qua profits of the eligible undertaking(s) or the global profits of the assessee as a whole, is no longer res integra. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd.: 161 ITR 320 held that deduction under section 80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaki…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 5491/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in up
Section 14ASection 35D

…ue whether deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act has to be allowed qua profits of the eligible undertaking(s) or the global profits of the assessee as a whole, is no longer res integra. Hon’ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd.: 161 ITR 320 held that deduction under section 80E of the Act was to be allowed with reference to profits of the eligible undertakings. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd, : 297 iTR 305 (Delhi) have taken the view that deduction under section 801/801A has to be computed with reference to profits of the eligible business / undertaki…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Indore vs. M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 803/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

DCIT !(1) Indore, Indore vs. Agrawal Coal Corporation (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 802/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore vs. M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 801/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

M/S Agrawal Coal Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Indore

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

ITA 778/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 801 to 803/Ind/2018 Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 DCIT 1(1) M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation Indore Vs. Pvt.Ltd, 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K ITA Nos. 778/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.23 & 24/Ind/2019 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Agrawal Coal Corporation DCIT 1(1) Pvt.Ltd, Vs. Indore 5, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No. AACCA8468K Revenue by…

M/S Nsl Sugars Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1228/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

…which section 80IA applies as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during that assessment year. The Assessee relied on the following decisions in support of its contention. CIT, Central Madras v/s Canara Workshop Pvt ltd (161 ITR 320) (SC) and CIT (WB)-v/s O.Belliss and Morecom(I) Ltd.(136 ITR 481)(Cal). 7. The CIT(Appeals) agreed with the submissions so made by the assessee and he directed the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Following are the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals):- “8. In the second ground of appeal, the deduction…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Nsl Sugars Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 37/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT(DR-I), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 70Section 72Section 80A(1)Section 80CSection 80I

…which section 80IA applies as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during that assessment year. The Assessee relied on the following decisions in support of its contention. CIT, Central Madras v/s Canara Workshop Pvt ltd (161 ITR 320) (SC) and CIT (WB)-v/s O.Belliss and Morecom(I) Ltd.(136 ITR 481)(Cal). 7. The CIT(Appeals) agreed with the submissions so made by the assessee and he directed the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Following are the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals):- “8. In the second ground of appeal, the deduction…