2016 (3) TMI 1268 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses appeal on deduction interpretation under Section 10A, finding no substantial question of law

The court dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of deduction under Section 10A of the Act and the treatment of business losses and profits of ... Deduction under Section 10A - whether Tribunal is right in law concluding that the deduction u/s 10A can be allowed before determining the gross total income and without setting off the business loss of DTA unit with the profit of EHTP unit resulting in carry forward of depreciation loss and without considering the Circular NO.7 of 2013 issued by CBDT wherein necessary clarifications have been issued with this regard and further holding that proceeding initiated under Section 263 is invalid even when same is done in accordance with parameters of the said provision? - Held that:- The issue is already covered by the decision of this court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] it cannot be said that any substantial question of law would arise for our consideration as canvassed. However, in the event the Apex Court takes a different view, the revenue may take appropriate action in accordance with law. Issues:Interpretation of deduction under Section 10A of the Act before determining gross total income and setting off business loss of DTA unit with profit of EHTP unit leading to carry forward of depreciation loss. Validity of proceeding under Section 263 in accordance with Circular NO.7 of 2013 issued by CBDT.Analysis:1. The appeal raised a substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 10A of the Act and the treatment of business losses and profits of different units. The Tribunal's decision on allowing the deduction before determining the gross total income was challenged, along with the carry forward of depreciation loss without setting off business losses. Additionally, the Circular NO.7 of 2013 issued by CBDT was cited for necessary clarifications in this regard.2. The court heard arguments from both parties, with Mr. K.V. Aravind and Mr. E.I. Sanmathi representing the appellant, and Mr. P. Dinesh and Mr. S. Parthasarathi representing the respondent-assessee.3. The counsel for the respondent-revenue acknowledged that the case was similar to a previous decision of the court in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., [(2012) 341 ITR 385]. However, as the revenue had appealed to the Apex Court, the issue was not considered closed.4. The court noted that since the issue was already covered by a previous decision of the court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd., it was not deemed to raise any substantial question of law for consideration. The court mentioned that if the Apex Court held a different view, the revenue could take appropriate action in accordance with the law.5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, subject to the observation that the issue was already addressed by the previous court decision, and any further action would depend on the decision of the Apex Court.