ITAT allows set off of profits and losses across units under Sections 35AD and 73A.

The ITAT allowed the appellant's Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of the order to enable set off of profits from Mumbai and Indore units against losses of the Chandigarh unit under Sections 35AD and 73A. It held that the Mumbai unit qualified as a "Specified Business," permitting the set off despite not meeting Section 35AD criteria. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow the set off, aligning with the Finance Bill 2011 clarification note. The orders were rectified to reflect the eligibility for set off as per the clarified provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of order for ITA No. 2384/Mum/2017 & 7348/Mum/2016, Set off of profits against losses, Interpretation of Section 35AD and Section 73A, Eligibility criteria for deduction and set off, Clarification on specified business units.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Order: The appellant filed two Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of the order dated 20.12.2019 passed in ITA No. 2384/Mum/2017 & 7348/Mum/2016 to dispose of the appeal on merits. The appellant contended that the profits of its Mumbai and Indore units should be available for set off against the loss of its Chandigarh unit under Section 73A of the Act.

2. Interpretation of Section 35AD and Section 73A: The appellant argued that even if a unit did not qualify for the deduction under Section 35AD, it could still be considered a "Specified Business" as per Section 35AD(8)(c)(iv) for the purpose of set off under Section 73A. The appellant emphasized that the Mumbai and Indore units, though not qualifying for the Section 35AD deduction, were eligible for set off under Section 73A due to falling within the definition of "Specified Business."

3. Eligibility Criteria for Deduction and Set Off: The Department disputed the appellant's claim for set off of profits from its Mumbai and Indore units against the loss of the Chandigarh unit, arguing that these units were not built or owned by the appellant. However, the Hon. ITAT accepted the appellant's argument that the Mumbai unit fell within the definition of "Specified Business" and directed that its profits could be set off against the loss of the Chandigarh unit.

4. Clarification on Specified Business Units: The ITAT acknowledged that the Indore unit was a specified business but established before the cut-off dates specified in Section 35AD, rendering it ineligible for the deduction under that section. However, based on a clarification note on the Finance Bill 2011, it was clarified that the loss of a specified business claiming deduction under Section 35AD could be set off against the profit of another specified business under Section 73A, irrespective of the latter's eligibility for the deduction under Section 35AD.

5. Final Decision: The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to allow the appellant to claim set off against the profits earned from the Mumbai and Indore units against the carry-forward losses of the Chandigarh unit, in line with the amended provision and clarification note provided for the Finance Bill 2011. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the appellant were allowed, and the orders were rectified to reflect the eligibility for set off as per the clarified provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, interpretations of legal provisions, and the final decision rendered by the ITAT in favor of the appellant regarding the set off of profits against losses for specified business units under Sections 35AD and 73A of the Income Tax Act.

---