Court rulings on deduction under Section 80I and 32AB: one dismissal, one partial allowance.

The High Court ruled against the appellant-assessee in ITA No.49 of 2001, regarding the deduction under Section 80I after reducing the deduction under Section 32AB. However, in ITA No.187 of 2002, the court favored the assessee concerning income accrual for performance security. Similarly, in ITA No.200 of 2002, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the computation of deduction under Section 32AB. Consequently, ITA Nos. 49 of 2001 and 200 of 2002 were dismissed, while ITA No.187 of 2002 was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80I after reducing the amount of deduction allowable under Section 32AB.
2. Referral to a special bench on the disputed issue.
3. Income accrual for performance security withheld against bank guarantees.
4. Computation of deduction under Section 32AB on a unit basis or as a whole.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deduction under Section 80I after Reducing Deduction under Section 32AB
The appellant-assessee challenged the Tribunal's decision to allow deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after reducing the deduction allowable under Section 32AB. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including CIT vs. Loonkar Tools Pvt. Limited and CIT vs. M/s Rajaram Maize Products, which held that deductions under sections like 80HH and 80I should be computed after considering deductions like depreciation and investment allowance. The Tribunal concluded that the deduction under Section 80I must be allowed after reducing the deduction under Section 32AB, aligning with the provisions of Sections 80AB and 80B(5). The High Court endorsed the Tribunal's view, finding no error or perversity in its approach, thereby answering this question against the assessee.

Issue 2: Referral to a Special Bench
The appellant contended that the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a special bench. However, the High Court declined this issue, stating it was not a substantial question of law.

Issue 3: Income Accrual for Performance Security Withheld Against Bank Guarantees
For the assessment year 1990-91, the appellant claimed that 5% to 10% of the sale price withheld as performance security did not accrue as income due to incomplete contractual obligations. The Tribunal held that the income had actually accrued and any probable obligation under the warranty clause did not negate this accrual. However, the High Court found merit in the appellant's submission, citing precedents like CIT vs. Jay Bee Industries and CIT vs. Sony India (P) Limited, which treated warranty liabilities as allowable deductions. The High Court concluded that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the appellant's claim, thus answering this question in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4: Computation of Deduction under Section 32AB
The revenue challenged the Tribunal's direction to recompute the deduction under Section 32AB by considering the utilization of plant and machinery as a whole rather than restricting it to each profit-making unit. The Tribunal, following the Delhi Bench's decision in Phoneix Overseas Limited vs. CIT, held that Section 32AB did not restrict the deduction to the unit where machinery was installed but allowed it out of the total income of the assessee. The High Court found the Tribunal's approach consistent with Section 32AB and saw no basis for restricting the deduction to individual units. Consequently, this question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
- ITA No.49 of 2001: The substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 80I after reducing the deduction under Section 32AB was answered against the assessee.
- ITA No.187 of 2002: The question regarding income accrual for performance security was answered in favor of the assessee.
- ITA No.200 of 2002: The question regarding the computation of deduction under Section 32AB was answered in favor of the assessee.

As a result, ITA Nos. 49 of 2001 and 200 of 2002 were dismissed, while ITA No.187 of 2002 was partly allowed.

---