Case Law Details
The assessee had two units, namely, a steering unit and an axle unit, both of which were eligible u/s 80-I. While one unit was making profits, the other was incurring losses. The AO and CIT (A) took the view that deduction u/s 80-I on the profits of one unit could be allowed only after setting off the losses of the other unit.
On appeal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the two units were independent of each other and that u/s 80-I (6), the profit making unit had to be considered to be independent of the other. Before the High Court, the department claimed that the issue was covered in their favour by Synco Industries 299 ITR 444 (SC) where it had been held that the losses had to be set off before claiming deduction u/s 80-I. HELD dismissing the appeal and deciding in favour of the assessee:
(i) The effect of s. 80-I (6) is that the deduction has to be computed as if the industrial undertaking were the only source of income of the assessee. Each industrial undertaking is to be treated separately and independently. It is only those industrial undertakings which have a profit or gain which have to be considered for computing the deduction. The loss making industrial undertaking would not come into the picture at all. The loss of one such industrial undertaking cannot be set off against the profit of another such industrial undertaking to arrive at a computation of the quantum of deduction that is to be allowed to the assessee u/s 80-I (1);
(ii) In Synco Industries 299 ITR 444 (SC), the Supreme Court did not hold that while computing the deduction u/s 80-I(6), the loss of one eligible industrial undertaking is to be set off against the profit of another eligible industrial undertaking. All that the Supreme Court said was that in computing the gross total income of the assessee, the same has to be determined after adjusting the losses and that, if the gross total income of the assessee so determined turns out to be “Nil”, then the assessee would not be entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A. In fact, the Supreme Court clearly held that while computing the quantum of deduction u/s 80-I (6), the AO has to treat the profits derived from an industrial undertaking as the only source of income of the assessee in order to arrive at a deduction under Chapter VI-A and that the loss sustained in one of the units is not to be taken into account.
See Also: Scientific Atlanta vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai Special Bench) S. 10A deduction allowable without set off of losses of non-eligible units.
