Set off of losses between units under Income Tax Act restricted, court rejects claim.

The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the set off of losses of one unit against the profits of other units under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act was impermissible. The court rejected the assessee's claim for set off based on the interpretation of circular No.7/(DV)/2013 issued by the CBDT and noted the judicial divergence on this issue among different High Courts. The decision emphasized consistency in legal interpretation and application, aligning with previous rulings and established legal principles.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Set off of losses of one unit against the profits of other units under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of circular No.7/(DV)/2013 issued by the CBDT regarding computation of total income and set off of losses.
3. Judicial divergence on the permissibility of set off of losses between different High Courts.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Set off of losses under Section 10A
The case involved the question of allowing the set off of losses of one unit against the profits of other units under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed the set off of losses amounting to a specific sum against the profits of other units for the relevant assessment year. Previous judgments by Division Benches had accepted the revenue's decision that such set off was impermissible. The court noted the divergence of judicial opinion on this matter, with some favoring the Revenue and others favoring the assessee. After analyzing the decisions, the court upheld the previous ruling that set off in this scenario was impermissible, thereby deciding in favor of the Revenue against the assessee.

Issue 2: Interpretation of circular No.7/(DV)/2013
The learned counsel for the assessee relied on circular No.7/(DV)/2013 issued by the CBDT to support the claim for set off of losses. The circular provided guidance on the computation of total income and set off of losses under different heads of income. It outlined the process of aggregating income/loss from various sources and the eligibility for deduction under specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the court found the reliance on this circular unpersuasive in the context of the specific case and ruled in favor of the Revenue based on the existing legal interpretations and precedents.

Issue 3: Judicial divergence on set off of losses
The court acknowledged the divergence of judicial opinion on the permissibility of set off of losses between different High Courts. While some High Courts had ruled in favor of the Revenue, others had favored the assessee on similar matters. In this case, the court followed the precedent set by previous rulings and decided in favor of the Revenue based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and established legal principles. The decision was aligned with the judgment in a similar case, emphasizing consistency in legal interpretation and application across different cases.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues surrounding the set off of losses under Section 10A, the interpretation of relevant circulars, and the importance of consistency in legal decisions across different High Courts. The court's decision provided clarity on the permissibility of such set offs and upheld the ruling in favor of the Revenue based on established legal principles and precedents.

---