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.

Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2146/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Aman BarasiaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…16. 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…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

…preceding line, it should have been 'aggregate of profits and gains derived from such undertakings'. The assessee has placed reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshop (P.) Ltd.[1986] 161 ITR 320. The Supreme Court in this case held that in computing the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 80E, the loss incurred by the in the manufacture of alloy steels (a priority industry) could not be set off against the profits of the manufacture of automobile ancillaries (another priority industry) and hence the was entitled to deducti…

M/S Elin Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Nalagarh vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1506/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Amit SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. Yogendra Mittal
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…gments in the case of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore [2012] 26 taxmann.com 317 (Bang.), Shriram Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, Company Circle-VI(2)[2013] 36 taxmann.com 398 (Chennai-Trib.), CIT Vs. Canara Workshop Pvt. Ltd. 161 ITR 320. 7. Ld. DR shri Y. Mittal, relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that all these deductions are mentioned under Chapter VI-A and the sequence of computation of income and deduction is common for all the sections under Chapter VI , be it is for section 80 HHC,80IA, 80IB and 80IC. He argued that the deductions come after determina…

M/S Elin Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Nalagarh vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1505/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Amit SharmaFor Respondent: Shri. Yogendra Mittal
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…gments in the case of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore [2012] 26 taxmann.com 317 (Bang.), Shriram Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT, Company Circle-VI(2)[2013] 36 taxmann.com 398 (Chennai-Trib.), CIT Vs. Canara Workshop Pvt. Ltd. 161 ITR 320. 7. Ld. DR shri Y. Mittal, relied on the orders of the lower authorities and argued that all these deductions are mentioned under Chapter VI-A and the sequence of computation of income and deduction is common for all the sections under Chapter VI , be it is for section 80 HHC,80IA, 80IB and 80IC. He argued that the deductions come after determina…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Asst CIT RG 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 147/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…to why deduction under section 80IB should not be calculated after adjusting consolidated loss of the two units against the profits of two other units. In response to the show cause notice, assessee relied upon certain case laws viz., CIT vs Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions. The Ld. AO however, rejected the assessee‟s contention that deduction has been claimed only in respect of two units without setting off of losses of other 2 units. The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is as under:- “The contention of the ARs is perused. The assessee draws a consolidated tradi…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 560/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…to why deduction under section 80IB should not be calculated after adjusting consolidated loss of the two units against the profits of two other units. In response to the show cause notice, assessee relied upon certain case laws viz., CIT vs Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions. The Ld. AO however, rejected the assessee‟s contention that deduction has been claimed only in respect of two units without setting off of losses of other 2 units. The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is as under:- “The contention of the ARs is perused. The assessee draws a consolidated tradi…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Syngenta India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1926/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklait(Tp)A No.: 1373/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) ससिंगएनता इिंडिमा प्राइवेट सरसभटेि Vs Dy. Cit- 1(3), Room No.564, Syngenta India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, S No. 110/11/3, Amar Paradigm M K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Baner Road, Pune -411 045 स्थमी रेखा सिं. Pan: Aaecs 9424 P अऩीराथी (Appellant) प्रत्मथी (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C(2)

…to why deduction under section 80IB should not be calculated after adjusting consolidated loss of the two units against the profits of two other units. In response to the show cause notice, assessee relied upon certain case laws viz., CIT vs Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions. The Ld. AO however, rejected the assessee‟s contention that deduction has been claimed only in respect of two units without setting off of losses of other 2 units. The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is as under:- “The contention of the ARs is perused. The assessee draws a consolidated tradi…

DCIT, Tiruppur vs. M/S. Dollar Apparels, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2040/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A
Section 80ASection 80ESection 80I

…ve for the assessee submitted that the wind mill unit has to be taken as the only source of the income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the eligible profit. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 (SC), the learned representative for the assessee submitted that while considering the provisions of Section 80E of the Act, the Apex Court found that it was never intended that the income earned by an industry should be lost or diminished because of a loss suffered by some other industry. The Supreme Court further observed that it makes no diff…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…to why deduction under section 80IB should not be calculated after adjusting consolidated loss of the two units against the profits of two other units. In response to the show cause notice, assessee relied upon certain case laws viz., CIT vs Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions. The Ld. AO however, rejected the assessee’s contention that deduction has been claimed only in respect of two units without setting off of losses of other 2 units. The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is as under:- “The contention of the ARs is perused. The assessee draws a consolidated tradi…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

ITA 8534/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 145ASection 80I

…to why deduction under section 80IB should not be calculated after adjusting consolidated loss of the two units against the profits of two other units. In response to the show cause notice, assessee relied upon certain case laws viz., CIT vs Canara Workshops, 161 ITR 320(SC) and various other Tribunal decisions. The Ld. AO however, rejected the assessee’s contention that deduction has been claimed only in respect of two units without setting off of losses of other 2 units. The relevant observation of the AO in this regard is as under:- “The contention of the ARs is perused. The assessee draws a consolidated tradi…

M/S. I Gate Global Solutions Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1239/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C(2)

…the eligible units cannot be set off against profits of eligible units. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i. IGate Global Solutions Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 24 SOT 3(Bang.) and ii. CIT vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd. (161 ITR 320)(SC) IT(TP)A No.1239/Bang/2010 M/s.iGate Global Solutions Ltd., Page 22 of 24 7.2 The learned departmental representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 8.2 On going through the material on record and after considering the rival contentions, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Workshops Pvt.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Wipro Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…ogress and therefore cannot set off the loss?” [Question of law No.16 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 – (Department’s Appeal)]. 163. The said substantial questions of law was considered by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops reported in 161 ITR 320 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 164. Following the said Judgment in the assessee’s case itself in ITA 1395/06 connected with ITA 1394/06, this - 185 - Court by its order dated 5.11.2013 following the Judgment of the Supreme Court answered the said substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and a…

M/S Wipro Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

…ogress and therefore cannot set off the loss?” [Question of law No.16 in ITA Nos.210 & 211/2009 – (Department’s Appeal)]. 163. The said substantial questions of law was considered by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Canara Workshops reported in 161 ITR 320 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 164. Following the said Judgment in the assessee’s case itself in ITA 1395/06 connected with ITA 1394/06, this - 185 - Court by its order dated 5.11.2013 following the Judgment of the Supreme Court answered the said substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and a…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/165/2001HC Delhi19 Jan 2015
Section 260ASection 32ASection 37(4)Section 80Section 80I

…ssion. 2015:DHC:497-DB ITA No. 170 & 165/2001 Page 14 of 25 16. Similar issue and contention was examined by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Canara Workshops (P) Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 320 (SC). In the said case, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80E of the Act on manufacture of springs at Mangalore and Nagpur plant and manufacture unit of hubs and brake drums. However, the assessee had not taken into account,the losses suffered in the alloy steel industry. The question of aggregation or setting off of losse…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi VIII vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITA-740/2008HC Delhi24 Dec 2010
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 80

…REPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 740/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VIII .....Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate versus INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder S. Gulati and Mr. Kamaldeep Gulati, Advocates % Date of Decision : December 24, 2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to t…