High Court grants Section 80IB deduction for Units I & II, directs reassessment under Section 80IA. Revenue's appeals dismissed.

The High Court allowed the Assessee's appeals, granting the deduction under Section 80IB for both Unit-I and Unit-II. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction under Section 80IA in line with the principles established in a previous judgment. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, with the Court ruling in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue on the legal questions raised.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Computation of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Claim of Deduction under Section 80IB

The appeals revolve around the claim of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessee for two units, Unit-I and Unit-II. The Revenue contended that the units were formed by splitting and/or reconstruction of an existing undertaking, thus disqualifying them from the deduction. The Assessing Officers denied the relief for both units on these grounds. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] partly allowed the appeals, granting a 25% deduction for Unit-I and scaling down the deduction for Unit-II from 100% to 25%, reasoning that Unit-II was not an independent unit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions.

The High Court examined whether the Assessee's units were formed by splitting or reconstruction and whether they carried out manufacturing activities. The Court found that Unit-I was not formed by splitting or reconstruction and performed the vital function of nut tapping, thus qualifying for the deduction. For Unit-II, the Court noted substantial investments, separate labor, distinct premises, and separate licenses, indicating it was a separate and distinct industrial undertaking. The Court concluded that the mere fact that Unit-II purchased nut blanks from Unit-I did not disqualify it from the deduction, as long as it met the conditions of being a separate and distinct industrial undertaking.

Issue 2: Computation of Deduction under Section 80IA

The second issue involved the computation of deduction under Section 80IA, where the Assessee was aggrieved by the Assessing Officer's method of squaring off losses of earlier years against the profits of the current years. The High Court referred to the Division Bench's judgment in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that the Revenue cannot notionally bring forward losses of earlier years that have already been set off against other income. The Court applied this principle, directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction without bringing forward such losses.

Conclusion:

1. The High Court allowed the Assessee's appeals, granting the deduction under Section 80IB for both Unit-I and Unit-II, and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction under Section 80IA in accordance with the principles laid down by the Division Bench.
2. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the questions of law were answered in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

---