Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Section 10A Deduction for AY 2008-09

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision in a case concerning the computation of deduction under section 10A for the assessment year 2008-09. It was determined that the deduction should be allowed without setting off losses from a non-10A unit against profits, following precedents like Hindustan Unilever Ltd V/s DCIT and CIT V/s Patni Computer System Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that section 10A provides for a deduction, not an exemption, and dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on 13.5.2015.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of deduction u/s 10A and set-off of losses against profits.
2. Allowance of carry forward of losses under section 10A.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the computation of deduction u/s 10A for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue contested the direction of the CIT(A) not to set-off the losses of the assessee's Gurgaon unit against the profits of its other unit before calculating the deduction u/s 10A. The revenue argued that the deduction u/s 10A should be allowable after set-off of losses as per Chapter VI of the Income Tax Act. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee based on precedents like Hindustan Unilever Ltd V/s DCIT and CIT V/s Patni Computer System Ltd.

2. The assessee had earned profits from a 100% export-oriented unit eligible for deduction u/s 10A but had also incurred losses in a non-10A unit. The AO initially recomputed the deduction u/s 10A by setting off the losses from the non-10A unit. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction in line with the judgments of the High Court, emphasizing that the losses should be set off against the profits of the year, and only unabsorbed losses remaining thereafter are eligible for carry forward.

3. The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd, where it was clarified that section 10B provides for a deduction, not an exemption. The Tribunal also referred to the similar view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s Yokigawa India Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) based on the legal interpretation provided by the High Courts, dismissing the revenue's grounds.

4. The cross-objection filed by the assessee merely supported the order of the CIT(A) without raising any new issues. Since the Tribunal's findings on the revenue's appeal were conclusive, the cross-objection was deemed infructuous. As a result, both the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal on 13.5.2015.

---