TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been allowed set off against other income in earlier years. 2. The decision of the Tribunal, Bombay Benches, in the case of M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT 105 TTJ 136 (Bom.) is in favour of the assessee and it held that unabsorbed depreciation of eligible project could not be set off against profit of eligible business for the purposes of deduction Under Section 80IA which unabsorbed depreciation stood already adjusted against profits of assessee from other business. Whereas, another Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd. 96 ITD 160 (Mum.) is stated to have held against the assessee by observing that for the purpose of applying the provisions contained in Section 80IA of the Act, the profits or gains of the eligible business are to be computed as if the eligible business were the only business of the assessee right from the initial year, brought forward losses of the unit have to be set off against the profits and in the absence of profit from the eligible units after set off of brought forward losses of the said units, deduction Under Section 80IA could not be allowed. The Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, in the case of ITO v. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd. 92 ITD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequent years the method was repeated. 6. Thus in all the Assessment years. 1997-98 to 2000-01 the assessee company claimed deduction Under Section 80IA on the basis of the profits earned in the respective year subject to the maximum of gross total income. On the other hand the A.O. reduced the claim of the assessee Under Section 80IA in view of the provisions of Section 80IA(7)/80IA(5) of the IT. Act holding that the deduction in these A.Y. 1997-98 and subsequent years would be allowable only on the income which is arrived after setting off of the carried forward losses on notional basis of the eligible business even though such losses of the eligible business were set off against other incomes' of the assessee in A.Y. 1996-97. The assessee challenged the order of the A.O. before the CIT(A) who primarily relied upon the judgment of High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. 215 ITR 249 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: 10. From the various decisions discussed, the crystallized ratio appears to be: (i) The profits and gains of an IU should have been included in the Total Income and that such pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The fiction also appears to have been created so that the profit of such IU could not be artificially increased or decreased like in the case of deduction Under Section 80J being based on proportion of turnover. It is significant to note that the Sub-section 80IA(7) has not used the fiction " or as if the past years' depreciation or development rebate had not been set off against other income of the assessee" as is mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajapalayam Mills. In place the section has used the fiction mentioned in the aforesaid judgment "if the new IU were the only business of the assessee". Looking into the controversies, if the legislature intended to permit set off such absorbed loss and depreciation, against the current profit of the IU, it could have very well used the first fiction mentioned above. It appears more logical that the legislation chose the other fiction to clarify the issue that the profit of an IU is to be determined as if, such business was only source. By this, the legislation meant to clarify that the profit of each unit is to be determined as per provisions of Act but did not mean to introduce the fiction that the unabso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of the legislative. 10.2.3 As is mentioned by the AR, the Circular No. 657 intended to give benefit to energy sector. The Act allowed 100% depreciation and also exemption of 100% profit from tax for first five years. If the interpretation of the AO is accepted the very objective of incentive is defeated. As is revealed by the statistics of the income generation by wind farm, the appellant will require at least 15 years to absorb the depreciation which had already been set off against other income i.e. the owner of wind farm will never get the benefit of deduction. 10.2.4 Further the reason advanced by the learned AR quoted in para 6(iii)(b) is also very valid. The benefit proposed to be given puts appellant in disadvantageous position if the interpretation of the department is accepted. 10.3 Considering the objective of the incentive section, ratios laid down by the higher courts, harmonious construction of various similar incentive provision related to new IU and the strict interpretation of the fiction in 80IA(7), I am of the opinion that the fiction cannot be extended to permit the set off of already absorbed depreciation of the IU against other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....though set off against other type of income in that year has to be set off against the subsequent year income of the eligible business. The following example illustrates the position: 'A' has only activity of eligible business Yr. No. 1st year 2nd year Profit/loss Loss of Rs. 1.5 crore Profit of Rs. 2 crores Deduction U/S. 80-IA Nil On Rs. 0.5 Cr.=(2-1.5 Cr.) 'B' has Two activities - one of eligible business and other non-eligible business activity Yr. No. 1st year 2nd year Eligible business+ Non-eligible Eligible business+ Non-eligible Loss of 1.5 Cr. + Profit. 1.50 Cr. Profit Rs. 2 Cr.+ Profit Rs. 1.50 Cr. Deduction U/S. 80-IA NIL On Rs. 2 Cr. 9. He submitted that in the second year "A" would get deduction of Rs. 0.5 Cr. whereas, "B" gets deduction of Rs. 2 Cr. W would be at disadvantageous stage as compared to 'B' despite the fact that both "A" and "B" had similar eligible businesses earning similar profit/ losses in the first and second years and that 80IA deduction is allowable to the eligible business and not to the assessees- 'A' or 'B'. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andate in the section to presume that it should be notionally carry forward and set of against the profits of the eligible business of the subsequent year. 14. Had the intention was to presume that other business or source was not in existence, then in that case Section 80A(2) and 80B(5) would/should also be not applicable in restricting the deduction to the gross total income of the assessee which has been held to be applicable by Bombay High Court in the case of the Bombay High Court in the case of Synco Industries Limited V.AO: 254 ITR 608 (Bom) upheld recently by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 8th March, 2008. As these sections can be applicable only when there is other source(s) of income, there cannot be any reconciliation of this decision to restricting the deduction of the income from the industrial undertaking to the amount of income by the set off of losses under the heads "other heads of income". 15. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions of the respondent assessee. The deduction was originally provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 801 at 20% (25% in case of a company) of and from such profits and gains derived by an industrial un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with Section 80I, as contained in Clause-30, appeared at Page No. 154 of Volume 123 of ITR clarifying the legislative intention reads as under; 30. The new "tax holiday" scheme differs from the existing scheme in the following respects, namely: (i) The basis of computing the "tax holiday" profits is being changed from capital employed to a percentage of the taxable income derived from the new industrial unit, ship or approved hotel. In the case of companies, 25 percent of the profits derived from new industrial undertaking etc., will be exempted from tax for a period of seven years and in the case of other taxable entities 20 per cent. Of such profits will be exempted for a like period. In the case of cooperative societies, however, the exemption will be allowed for a period of ten years instead of seven year. (ii) The benefit of "tax holiday" under the new scheme would be admissible to all small-scale industrial undertakings even if they are engaged in the production of articles listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act. In the case of other industrial undertakings, however, the deduction will be available, as at present, where the underta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1-4-2000- one, by the replaced 80IA and other, by the newly inserted Section 80IB. For material purposes and in order to resolve the controversy in these cases, we find the new provisions as almost identically worded to those of the aforesaid earlier provisions of Section 80I and 80IA. Section 80IA(1) similarly provides that "Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by ah undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in Sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Under this section the deduction is to eligible business, as defined in Sub-section (4) thereof. 22. Sub-section (5) of Section 80IA of the newly replaced and inserted provisions of the Act reads as under: (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one had against income from another and Section 72 providing for carry forward and set off of business losses. Section 32(2) makes provision for carry forward and set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of a particular year. The effect of the abovementioned provisions is that while computing the total income, the losses carried forward and deprecation have to be adjusted and thereafter the Assessing Officer has to work out the Gross Total Income of the assessee. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A specifically enacts that the aggregate of deductions under Chapter VI-A should not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. If the Gross Total Income is found to be a net Loss on account of the adjustment of loses of the earlier years or "nil", no deduction under this Chapter can be allowed. As noticed earlier Clause (5) of Section 80B defines the expression "gross total income" to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the act without making any deductions under chapter VI-A. The effect of Clause (5) of the Section 80B of the Act is that Gross Total Income will be arrived at after making the computation as follows: i) making deductions under the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding as "Notwithstanding anything contained in any provisions of the Act". It means it overrides all the provisions of the Act. Profits and gains of a business are determined, as aforesaid, by allowing, all deduction including under Section 32 and set off under the provisions of Section 70, 71 and 72. It is on the balance the deduction is allowed 'under Chapter VIA. By this overriding provision these section, to the extent provided otherwise in Section 80IA(5) are not to be taken into consideration. Therefore whatever is stated in the other provision is to be ignored 29. The third sub-head provides that the profit and gains are computed on a fiction created to the effect that the eligible business is the only source of income. It is a deeming provision and a deeming provision is intended to enlarge/curtail the meaning of a particular word which includes or excludes matters which otherwise may or may not fall within the provision; it should therefore, be extended to the consequence and incidence which shall inevitably follow. The following off-quoted observations of Lord Asquith in East and Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsburry Borough Council 1952 (AC) 109, may appropriately be ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, was not that Section 32(2), 70, 71 and 72would not be applicable, in our opinion, has also no force. It amounts to permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of the deemed state of affairs and also reading something which is prohibited by the fiction as not there in the provisions. Because of the fiction, even if any set off of eligible business loss was made against other sources of income, it has to be assumed not so set off. The fiction is to clarify the position that the deduction is to be granted only with respect of the profits of the eligible business, if the assessee was carrying many activities and having many sources of income. "As if that were the only source of income" means if there was no other source of income. If that be so the depreciation and loss could not be absorbed and be set off against any other source or head of income. It is because by virtue of deeming fiction one has to assume that there is no other source of income and consequently it has to be carried forward and set of against the income of this very source only for which the deduction is being computed. The argument that if the loss incurred by the assessee were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the only source of income of the assessee and that Assessing Officer adjusting the profits of the eligible unit against the losses of other units of the assessee and restricting the deduction to the extent of business income was held not justified. The Tribunal, in Tolani Ltd. v. DCIT. 84 TTJ 881 (Mum) held that, as no profits were left after allowing deduction under Section 33AC, no deduction can be allowed under Section 80I as by virtue of Section 80I(6), as the profits of ship have to be computed as if the ship was the only source of income. 35. In a contrary situation the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl. CIT v. Ashok Alco Chem Ltd. 96 ITD 160 (Mum) similarly explained that for the purpose of applying the provisions contained in Section 80IA, the profits and gains of the eligible business are to be computed as if the eligible business were the only business of the assessee right from the initial year and the losses, depreciation or development rebate in respect of such eligible business for the past assessment years were not set off against the profits from other business; that there being no profit in respect of two units after set off of brought forward l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for determining profits and gains for the purpose of deduction under Section 80I; and hence, order passed by the AO allowing deduction under Section 80-I without setting off unabsorbed losses of earlier years against the income of the succeeding years was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 37. Again in Sri Ramakrishna Mills (CBE) Ltd. v. DCIT 7 SCT 356 (Chennai holding in any assessment year, if the industrial undertaking suffers loss (both business and/or depreciation loss) but the same has been absorbed by the other income of the assessee in the subsequent year or years during the tax holiday period, the said loss will have to be adjusted against the eligible profits and gains from industrial undertaking and tax holiday benefit under Section 80-I is to be computed only on the balance. 38. The Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, in the case of ITO v. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd. 92 ITD 557 (Kol.) discussed both the situations of losses of other business and of the business of eligible business and concluded that in view of Sub-section (7) of Section 80IA, for computing deduction Under Section 80IA, brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of inel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(5) of the Act 40. The CIT(A) in our opinion erred in following the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. (supra) which was rendered in connection with the deduction Under Section 80HH of the I.T. Act which had no provisions like 801(6) or pre amended Section 80IA(7) or post amended Section 80IA(5)of the I.T. Act. In the case before the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Mewar Oil & General Mills Ltd. (supra), nobody's pointed out the existence of Sub-section (6) to Section 80I nor was it noticed or discussed by the court though the Assessing Officer has sought to compute the income of the new undertaking for the purpose of computing deductions permissible under that section by setting off the loss carried forward from the assessment year 1983-84 by treating the new undertaking as the only source of income against which such losses carried forward could be set off. He relied on the decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT held that the carried forward un-absorbed loss of the priority industry was first to be reduced from the total income and before computing the income of the assessee for the purpose of deductions and it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r computing profit and gains of the eligible business for the determining the quantum of deduction under the section. This restricts the application of the fiction to a specified purpose and therefore it cannot be extended beyond the object for which the fiction is created. Once that purpose i.e., the determination of quantum of deduction is over, one has to fall back to the provisions of the Act for computing the total income as held by the Bombay High court in Synco Industries Limited V.AO : 254 ITR 608 (Bom) as upheld recently by the Supreme Court as reported in 299 ITR 444(SC). In this case the assessee was engaged in the business of oil and chemicals. It had a unit for oil division in Sirohi and a unit for chemical division in Jodhpur. For the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 it had earned profits in both the units. But in the earlier years the assessee had suffered losses in the oil division. In relation to the deductions under Sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it claimed that each unit should be treated separately and the losses suffered in the earlier years by the oil divisions were not adjustable against the profits of the chemical division. But since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ender the provisions of Section 80A(2) of the Act nugatory. Sections 40A(2) and 80B(5)are declaratory and apply to all the sections falling in Chapter VI-A. They impose a ceiling on the total amount of deduction and therefore the non obstante clause in Section 80-I(6) cannot restrict the operation of Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. The gross total income of the assessee has first got to be determined after adjusting losses etc., and if the gross total income of the assessee is "nil" the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. 43. A specific contention was raised in this case as to the non obstante provisions of Section 80I(6) as was applicable in that case to contend that the fiction overrides all other provisions of the Act and the court held: 13. The contention that under Section 80I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be was the only source of income, has no merit. Section 80I(1) lays down that where the gross total income of the assessee includes any profits derived from the priority undertaking/ unit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he total amount of deduction and, therefore, the non-obstante clause in section80-I(6) cannot-restrict the operation of Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) which operate in different spheres. As observed earlier, Section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee and, therefore, while interpreting Section 80-I(1), which also refers to gross total income one has to read the expression "gross total income" as defined in Section 80B(5). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court was justified in holding that the loss from the oil division was required to be adjusted before determining the gross total income and as the gross total income was "nil" the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under Chapter VI-A which includes Section 80-I also. 14. The proposition of law, emerging from the above discussion is that the gross total income of the assessee has first got to be determined after adjusting losses, etc., and if the gross total income of the assessee is "nil" the assessee would not be entitled to deductions under Chapt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also be mentioned that under Section 80-I(6), for the purposes of calculating the deduction, the loss of the oil division cannot be taken into account because Sub-section (6) contemplates that only the profits, shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income. However, as held by us in the case of Nima Specific Family Trust's [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom), Section 80A(2) and Section 80B(5) are declaratory in nature. They will apply to all the sections falling in Chapter VI-A. They impose a ceiling on the total amount of deduction and, therefore, the non obstante clause in Section 80-I(6) cannot restrict Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). They operate in different spheres. Section 80-I(6) deals with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) deals with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of an assessee and, therefore, while interpreting Section 80-I(1), which refers to gross total income, one has to read the expression "gross total income" in Section 80-I(1) as defined in Section 80B(5). 46. Reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 was also made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That, while calculating the quantum of deduction, the profits of the chemical division alone are to be taken. Up to this stage, there is no dispute. However, after calculating the deduction on the basis that the profits from the chemical division was the only source of income, one has to give effect to the computed deduction in order to arrive at the total income of the company and while giving effect, one has to consider the provisions of Section 80-I(1). read with Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). In other words, in the example given by us in Nima Specific Family Trust's case [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom), even if the total amount of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-I is Rs. 32, but the gross total income is Rs. 30, then to that extent, the amount of deduction shall stand reduced. That, while calculating the gross total income of the company, one has to adjust the losses from one priority unit against the profits of the other priority unit and if the resultant gross total income is "nil", then the assessee cannot claim deduction under Chapter VI-A. In the circumstances, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd.'s case [1986] 161 ITR 320 has no application t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools India Ltd. were applied. 48. There is no discussion at all either in this case or the cases relied therein of kerala and Madras High Courts regarding the fiction as created in Section 80I(6)/80IA(5) and therefore these cases cannot lead us anywhere. 49. Similarly the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mewar Oil & General Mills Ltd. 271 ITR 311(Raj), though also held that losses which have been absorbed in earlier years income from other sources the same cannot be notionally carried forward and set of while computing the deduction of eligible business, but this case has not noticed the non obstante provisions of Section 80I(6)/80IA(5) and, therefore, there is no discussion on this point in that decision. It would similarly, therefore, be not of any help to us. 50. The brief facts of the Joyco India (P) Limited, the intervener before the Special Bench, are that during the assessment year 1999-2000, the intervener was carrying on business in three different units, namely,- i) Bubble Gum unit, ii) Plain Toffee unit and iii) Trading unit. It has profit in Bubble Gum Unit of Rs. 6,84,51,624 and in Plain Toffee Unit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wable under Section 80-IA of the Act. We have already held above that when the assumption is that the assessee has that source as the only source of income, one has to assume there could not be any set off of any depreciation or loss of the eligible business against any other source which is deemed not in existence by the fiction created in Sub-section (5) of Section 80IA. c. The third ground is that the effects of the deeming fiction enacted in the provisions of Section 80IA(5) of the Act pointed out by the ld. Counsel of the intervener, that it only seeks to set at rest long standing controversy, namely,-whether for computing deduction losses incurred in one eligible unit is required to be set-off against the profits of the other eligible undertaking or not; and that the aforesaid controversy came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of CIT v. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd. : 161 ITR 320(SC), wherein it is held that in computing the profits for the purpose of deduction under Section 80-E of the Act, the losses incurred by the assessee in a priority industry could not be set-off against the profits of another priority industry, referring with approval the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee right from the initial year and the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of such eligible business for the past assessment years were not set off against the profits from other business. Thus, the Legislature has covered the lacuna, as it was in Section 80J by creating a legal fiction by introducing Sub-section (7) of Section 80-IA. d. And the fourth ground is that though it true that the origin of the unabsorbed losses/ depreciation carried forward in the hands of the assessee to the year in which the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act is to be allowed, must be traced and If the unabsorbed losses/depreciation relates to the eligible undertaking, such unabsorbed losses/depreciation must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking for computing such deduction. This has to be done, irrespective of the option available to the assessee under Sections 72/32 of the Act to adjust unabsorbed losses/ depreciation against profits of any other undertaking/ other incomes and not against the profit of the eligible undertaking. Again it is half true and the half is that even if the losses of the eligible business are set off against o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court and the High Court could not ignore it because they thought that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court. Following the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court in Director of Settlements, AP v. M.R. Apparao observed: 7. ...The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain Aspects were; not considered the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court (AIR 1973 SC 794).... 54. We do not find any merits in these submissions of Mr. Vora. Firstly, the Supreme court was dealing with the binding nature of the Supreme Court decision on the High Court, whereas we are dealing with the decision of a High court and that too of a High Court having no jurisdiction over the case arising from a different State, which though has a high persuasive value is not binding in other jurisdiction. Secondly, the decision of Rajasthan High court has not dealt with and was also not addressed to deal with the controversy by noticing the non obstante provisions of Section 80I(6)/80IA(5) aforesaid. Thirdly, in any case the issue before Rajasthan High Court was whether Assessing Officer could be said to be just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion regarding applicability of Rule 72 of the Rues having not been even referred to, much less considered by Supreme Court in the earlier appeals, it cannot be said that the point is concluded by the same and no longer res Integra". This dictum will have no application to the case in hand on the question whether the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 398 of 1972 can be held to be a law declared under Article 141. 56. In view of the above, it gets crystalised that when a provision of a statute is not considered, it cannot be said that point is concluded by the Supreme Court decision and the same was no longer res integra. These decisions, therefore, are of no help in resolving the issue. The decision of Rajasthan High Court wherein provisions of Section 80I(6) were not specifically discussed nor brought to the notice of the High Court, cannot therefore be said to have concluded the issue, and consequently the same cannot be said to be a binding decision. 57. The contention of Mr. Vora that to read the legal fiction, namely, overriding Section 32(2), 70,71and 72 is also covered by the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA of the Act would clearly tantamount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980: is not binding on the Bench in view of UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889, 896 (SC); Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT 183 ITR 117(SC) ; J & K Synthetics Ltd. v. CBDT 83 ITR 335 (SC); Commissioner of Customs v. IOL 267 ITR 272 (SC), but it is just explaining the law as we have discussed above. In any case it is not a simple case of Circular but an Explanation by the Finance Minister in the Memorandum explaining the Budget proposal later incorporated in the Circular. 60. It is true as contended by Mr. Vora that the deeming fiction has to be strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field, but what is the legitimate field? When you are bidden to assume a state of affairs you cannot boggle your mind and assume the putative state of affairs as not real. Therefore though losses were set off against other sources income, they are to assumed as not set off in absence of existence of another source and for computing the profit and gains for the purposes of determination of the quantum of deduction one has to once again notionally bring back already set off losses, etc. and set off the same against the profits and gains in a year in the ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit remained to be adjusted against that very source they are to be carried forward to subsequent year(s), and set of in the succeeding year(s), and on the balance profit alone the deduction admissible would be computed; d. where there are no losses of the eligible unit carried forward (in view of set off against profits of that very source), it is the mandate of law that the losses of earlier years, though already absorbed against other sources they are once again be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of the eligible unit to compute eligible deduction. e. the deduction would be limited to gross total income; 64. Mr. Vora then advocated for liberal Construction by citing decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Limited v. CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC); Keshavji Ravji & Co. 183 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 177 ITR 431 (SC); CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 196 ITR 149 (SC); CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (SC); P.R. Prabhakar 284 ITR 548 (SC); and for adopting in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue where two interpretations are possible as held in the decisions: Manish Maheshwa....