2015 (6) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: "For that the Tribunal erred in law holding that the replantation subsidy received by the assessee from Tea Board is to be taken into consideration for computing the profits of eligible business for the purpose of determining the deduction under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 notwithstanding the specific provisions contained in clauses (a) and (b) sub-section (3) of Section 32AB of the said Act for computing the profits of eligible business." Mr.Agarwal, learned advocate for the revenue submitted that the view taken both by the CIT(Appeal) and the learned Tribunal is patently contrary to common sense and law. He contended that the benefit contemplated under section 32AB is applicable only to such income which is chargea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the point was decided way back in the year 1993 by the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd.& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) wherein Their Lordships held as follows : "There is a fundamental, though unwritten, axiom that no Legislature could have at all intended a double deduction in regard to the same business outgoing; and, if it is intended, it will be clearly expressed. In other words, in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read so as to permit an assessee two deductions - both under section 10(2)(vi) and section 10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or both under section 32(1)(ii) and section 35(1)(iv) of the 1961 Act. The use of the words "in respect of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) makes a clear distinction and expresses the intention of the Legislature which deviated from the expression used in sections 32AB(1)(a) and (b). The distinction sought to be made by Mr.Agarwal to support the views taken by the Gauhati High Court and the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Dinjoye Tea Estate (P)Ltd.(1997)224 ITR 263 and CIT v. Warren Tea Ltd.(2001) 251 ITR 382 do not seem to be a sound proposition. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Warren Tea Ltd.(2001) 251 ITR 382 followed the decision of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Dinjoye Tea Estate (P)Ltd.(1997) 224 ITR 263 is no more a good law in view of the decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), following which the Calcutta High Court had expr....