TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Calculation of Deductions Under Sections 80-I and 80-J Must Consider Full Income</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus DEVIDAYAL ROLLING REFINERIES (P) LTD.</h3> The High Court held that deductions under sections 80-I and 80-J should be calculated based on the full amount of income received from the priority or new ... - Issues:1. Interpretation of Supreme Court decision regarding set off of losses between priority and non-priority industries.2. Allowance of deduction on profit of priority industry with nil or negative gross total income.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a reference application with the ITAT under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, questioning the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Cambay Electric Supply & Industrial Company Ltd. The Tribunal rejected the reference applications seeking to refer two questions to the High Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that deductions under ss. 80-I and 80-J should be calculated separately for each relevant unit, not adjusted against each other. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of a similar provision in s. 80M and concluded that deductions should be calculated based on the full amount of income received from the priority or new undertaking, not after adjusting profits or losses between units.2. The High Court highlighted the different wording of s. 80E compared to ss. 80-I, 80-J, and 80M, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT was not applicable to the present case. The Court ruled that the deductions should be calculated based on the entire income received from the priority or new undertaking, without adjusting profits or losses between units. Consequently, the rule was discharged, and the petitioner was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of relevant provisions of the IT Act, 1961, and the application of Supreme Court decisions in determining deductions for priority and non-priority industries.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
