Interpretation of section 80J period requirement rejected a literal reading and denied deduction to the unit.

Section 80J(4)(iii) was interpreted by reference to its legislative history and the consistent use of financial-year computation in earlier tax holiday provisions. A literal reading that would shift the period to 2 April 1948 to 1 April 1981 was rejected as producing an anomalous result inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Authorities on limitation and other statutes were held inapplicable because the issue depended on the special wording of the concession and its historical treatment. On that construction, the Krilo Unit was held not entitled to relief under section 80J for the relevant assessment year.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Krilo Unit, which commenced production on 1-4-1981, was eligible for deduction under section 80J(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the period of 33 years from 1-4-1948 ended on 1-4-1981.

Analysis: The provision was interpreted in the light of its legislative history and the earlier tax holiday provisions that had consistently been computed with reference to financial years beginning on 1 April. The Court declined to accept a literal reading that would treat the relevant period as beginning on 2-4-1948 and ending on 1-4-1981, as that construction would create an anomalous result inconsistent with the scheme followed in earlier enactments and amendments. The Court also held that the authorities cited on limitation and other statutes did not govern the present context, because the issue turned on the meaning of the special phrase used in section 80J(4)(iii) and the historical treatment of the concession.

Conclusion: Relief under section 80J was not available to the Krilo Unit for the assessment year in question, and the ground was rejected.

---