Court affirms set-off decision based on amalgamation date but modifies deduction computation under Section 80HHC

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the set-off of business losses by considering the date of allotment as the actual date of the scheme of amalgamation. It was found that the shares did not exist on the last day of the previous year, and beneficial interest in the shares did not arise. However, the Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision on the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC, stating that unabsorbed business losses of earlier years should be set off in determining business profits for the deduction. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the Tribunal's judgment accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Set off of business losses considering the date of allotment as the actual date of the scheme of amalgamation.
2. Computation of deduction under Section 80HHC considering the current year's profit without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance.

Issue 1: Set off of Business Losses Considering the Date of Allotment as the Actual Date of the Scheme of Amalgamation

The appellant-revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision that allowed the set-off of business losses by considering the date of allotment as the actual date of the scheme of amalgamation. The Court examined Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, which specifies that no loss incurred in any year prior to the previous year shall be carried forward and set off against the income of the previous year unless certain conditions regarding shareholding are met.

The CIT(A) observed that the actual date of allotment was undisputed, and the issue was about the effective date of allotment. The CIT(A) noted that the beneficial holding of shares should remain with the same set of shareholders, and the actual date of allotment was not in dispute. The CIT(A) further reasoned that the retrospective effect given to the High Court's order only created a right to get shares allotted, not the right of being a member from the back date. Thus, the shares did not exist on the last day of the previous year, and the question of beneficial interest in the shares did not arise.

The Court agreed with the CIT(A) and concluded that the Tribunal was correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.

Issue 2: Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC Considering the Current Year's Profit Without Reducing Unabsorbed Depreciation and Unabsorbed Investment Allowance

The appellant-revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s order, which directed to compute the deduction under Section 80HHC considering the current year's profit without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance.

The respondent-assessee argued that the issue was already concluded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd., which held that Section 80AB of the Income Tax Act specifies that profits determined for the purpose of the Act will apply for determining profits from export business for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC. The unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under Section 72 should be set off in determining business profits for the deduction under Section 80HHC.

The Court, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, concluded that the Tribunal was not right in confirming the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal were modified accordingly. The question regarding the set-off of business losses was answered in favor of the assessee, and the question regarding the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC was answered in favor of the revenue.

---