Tata Chemicals Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Facts- The assessee has raised the ground with respect to the taxability of sales tax incentive whether is an income chargeable to tax and, if yes, whether same is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act and whether the fertilizer subsidy provided by the government as per price concession was an income eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act, has not been decided.
Conclusion- Hon Supreme court has considered whether various types of subsidies received by the assessee manufacturer are eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB / IC of the act or not. It held that these subsidies are income derived from business of eligible industrial undertaking.
Therefore, based on the ratio laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the Income Tax Act on fertilizer subsidy received by it. Accordingly, we hold that the fertilizer subsidy income received by the assessee is income derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act. Accordingly, ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed to that extent.
Held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the Income Tax Act on fertilizer subsidy received by it. Accordingly, we hold that the fertilizer subsidy income received by the assessee is income derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
01. This appeal is recalled by order of the coordinate bench in Miscellaneous Application number 136/M/2021 in ITA number 2439/M/2011 for assessment year 2003 – 04 passed on 17/9/2021 wherein as per paragraph number 12 it has been held that additional ground raised by the assessee number 3 with respect to the taxability of sales tax incentive whether is an income chargeable to tax and, if yes, whether same is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act as well as part of ground number 5 whether the fertilizer subsidy provided by the government as per price concession was an income eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act, has not been decided. Therefore, accordingly to that extent the order of the coordinate bench originally passed on 19/2/2021 in the above ITA was recalled.
02. Therefore now the grounds remain to be adjudicated are as Under:-
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 80(IB) of ₹25,31,96,667/-, in respect of the fertilizer unit of Haldia:
a. Without going through the detailed submissions made,
b. Holding that the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme does not have a direct nexus with the activities of the industrial unit;
c. Holding that the Fertilizer subsidy provided by the government as price concession was not income from the industrial undertaking and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80(IB).‖
03. The additional ground number 3 raised originally is as Under:-
“3. That the sales tax incentive money of ₹ 33,061,201/– being the amount retained by the company in accordance with Section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1944 (read with the West Bengal incentive scheme, 1999), was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax Under the income tax act .‖
04. Facts shows that for the impugned assessment year, Hindustan Lever chemicals Ltd was amalgamated with the assessee i.e. Tata chemicals Ltd. The effective date of amalgamation was 1 June 2004 and the appointed date was 1 April 2002. Based on this the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the claim u/s 80 IB, was not made but , disclosure was made that the same will be claimed at the time of assessment. During the course of assessment proceedings letter dated 30 November 2005 was submitted claiming deduction u/s 80 IB of ₹ 75,959,000 at the rate of 30% of the profit. This was the fourth year of tax holiday period. Audit report in form number 10 CCB was also filed. Ld AO denied the deduction.
05. The learned CIT – A as per the history of assessment year 2002 – 03 in case of Hindustan Lever chemicals Ltd noted that the Sales tax remission and price concession (subsidy) forming part of 80 IB claim were rejected by the assessing Officer in that year and therefore for the year sales tax remission of ₹ 3.31 crores and price concession subsidy of Rs 105.40 crores which have been included in the computation of claim u/s 80 IB of the act were rejected. Accordingly the 80 IB profit as per revised return of ₹ 253,196,667 was converted into a loss of ₹ 833,951,044/–.
06. Based on the above facts the assessee is aggrieved that the Sales tax remission of ₹ 3.31 crores and fertilizer price concession from government of Rs 105.40 crores should be included as an eligible income for deduction u/s 80 IB of the act.
07. The coordinate bench Per its order dated 19/2/2021 dealt with the [5] ground of appeal as per para number 16 wherein assessee challenged the exclusion of fertilizer subsidy provided by the government is a price concession held to be not an eligible income from the industrial undertaking and also as per ground number (b) the sales tax incentive holding that it does not have a direct nexus with the activities of the industrial unit.
08. Assessee also raised additional ground with respect to the taxability of sales tax incentive money of ₹ 33,061,201/–
09. Coordinate bench decided ground no [5] and additional ground of sales tax remission not an income as under :-
“16. The 5th ground of appeal
a. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80(IB) of ₹ 25,31,96,667/-, in respect of the fertilizer unit of Haldia:
b. without going through the detailed submissions made, holding that the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme does not have a direct nexus with the activities of the industrial unit;
c. holding that the Fertilizer Subsidy provided by the government as price concession was not income from the industrial undertaking and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80 (IB).
The assessee has also filed and additional ground, which reads as under:
“That the Sales Tax Incentive money of ₹ 3,30,61,201/- being the amount retained by the company in accordance with section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1944 (read with The West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999), was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.‖
As the above additional ground does not require investigation of additional facts and as it goes to the root of the matter, we admit it for adjudication by following the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra).
The AO noted that for the impugned assessment year, Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. (HLCL) (since amalgamated with the assessee) filed its return of income on 28.11.2003, claiming a refund of ₹ 2.87 crores. In the return of income, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7.59 crores was made in respect of its 3 new industrial undertakings located in category ―B‖ industrially backward district i.e. Midnapore, West Bengal. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and the refund arising on intimation was adjusted against the outstanding demand of HLCL for AY 1997-98. While processing the return of income u/s 143(1), TDS and advance tax payments of HLCL were not considered. The effective date of amalgamation was June 01, 2004 and the appointed date of amalgamation was April 01, 2002 i.e. HLCL amalgamated with the assessee w.e.f. April 2002. After amalgamation, the assessee filed a revised return of income for the financial year 2002-03 relevant to the impugned assessment year, incorporating the working results of HLCL. In the revised return of income, section 80IB claimed was not made but the disclosure was made that the same will be claimed at the time of assessment. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year, vide letter dated 30.11.2005, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7,59,59,000/- (same as that claimed in original return of HLCL) @ 30% of the profits (this being the 4th year of claim) in respect of erstwhile HLCL was made. The audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with audited accounts of the new industrial undertakings duly certified by the chartered accountant was also filed. Before the revised return of income was filed by the assessee-company, notice u/s 148-dated 31.03.2005 was issued by the AO of the erstwhile HLCL.
The AO having gone through the assessment records of AY 2002-03 of HLCL (earlier assessment year) noted that sales tax remission and price concession (subsidy) forming part of section 80IB claimed were rejected by the AO in that year. Observing that during year under consideration, both the items i.e. sales tax remission of ₹ 3.31 crores and price concession (subsidy) of ₹ 105.40 crores have been included in the computation of claim u/s 80IB of the Act, the AO disallowed the above sums by following the order of his predecessor for the earlier assessment year.
17. In appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) held that sales tax remission/subsidy has been received on account of the scheme of the Government for setting up the industrial unit in the ‘backward district‘; this finding is supported by the fact that the old unit was not in receipt of any such incentive; it is not the industrial unit from which this benefit was derived by the appellant but the Government scheme allowing such benefit depending upon the location of industry. Therefore, he held that there is merit in the finding of the AO that the remission/reimbursement is not ‘derived from the business of‘ the industrial undertaking. The Ld. CIT(A) in agreement with the AO relied on the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber chemicals Inds (244 ITR 204) and CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579). Stating that the impugned sales tax incentives has its genesis in the scheme of the Government, being located in a ‘backward area‘ and not in the profits derived from the industrial undertaking per se, he upheld the action of the AO in disallowing deduction u/s 80IB in respect of sales tax incentive.
In respect of fertilizer subsidy, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the findings of the AO that the selling price of the fertilizer in AY 2002-03 was much less than the MRP and that in case of DAP, while the MRP fixed by the Government was ₹ 9,350/- per metric ton, the selling price of the assessee was only ₹ 8,458/- per metric ton; the assessee was not able to sell the product at MRP fixed by the Government; also as noted by the AO as against pre-1994 when the price concessions were computed separately for individual units, now said concessions were being given uniformly to all the units in respect of similar variety of fertilizer and this also reflected that the concession by the Government was merely an aid to the assessee.
Further dismissing the contentions of the assessee that the fertilizer concessions being related to the sale of fertilizer products flew directly from the operations of the industrial undertaking, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the concessions being received from the Government is a ‘step removed‘ from the principal activity of the assessee-company namely-production and sale of fertilizer; it was not the industrial undertaking which yielded the subject income by way of sales tax concession but the scheme of the Government which made it possible for the assessee to receive those amounts and the existence of such a scheme was not an essential part of the industrial undertaking.
Further dismissing the contentions of the assessee that the terms ‘profits and gains derived from any business‘ is wide enough to cover profits having indirect nexus with the industrial undertaking, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the income from fertilizer concession is clearly relatable only to the Government scheme and not to the industrial undertaking per se; the contentions that the incentive provisions should be construed liberally would not mean that the incentives be allowed in respect of ineligible units.
Referring to the order of the AO, wherein the case of M/s Hind Lever chemicals Ltd. (AY 2002-03) is brought out to show how the assessee is not eligible for section 80IB deduction in respect of fertilizer concession/subsidy, the Ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the AO disallowing the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
18. Before us, the Ld. counsel reiterating the statement of facts filed before the Ld. CIT(A), submits that for the year under consideration, HLCL (since amalgamated with the assessee-company) filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 at Chandigarh before Addl. CIT, claiming a refund of ₹ 2.87 crores. In the said return, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7.59 crores was made in respect of its 3 new industrial undertakings located in category ―B’ industrially backward district i.e. in Midnapore, West Bengal. It is stated that the effective date of amalgamation was 01.06.2004 and the appointed date of amalgamation was 01.04.2002 i.e. HLCL amalgamated with the assessee-company w.e.f. 01.04.2002. It is stated that the order of the Hon‘ble Bombay and Punjab & Haryana High Court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation were filed before the AO. After the amalgamation, the assessee-company filed its revised return of income for the year under reference incorporating the working results of HLCL. In the revised return of income, section 80IB claim was not made but a disclosure was made that the same will be claimed at the time of assessment. It is stated by the Ld. counsel that during the course of assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 30.11.2005, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7,59,59,000/- (same as that claimed in original return of HLCL) @ 30% of the profits (this being the 4th year of claim) in respect of erstwhile HLCL was made. It is explained that the audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with audited accounts of the new industrial undertakings, duly certified by Chartered Accountant were also filed at the time of assessment.
Regarding the disallowance made by the AO of Sales Tax remission of ₹ 3.31 crores and price concession (subsidy) of ₹ 105.40 crores, included in the computation of section 80IB claim, the Ld. counsel submits that the sales tax collected is a part of trading receipt as held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinclair Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 97 ITR 615 (SC) and cannot be excluded from the income of the unit. Further, it is submitted that the fertilizer concession received by the assessee is nothing but part of the sale proceeds, which cannot be excluded while working out profit u/s 80IB of the Act.
19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the sales tax remission/subsidy has been received on account of the Scheme of the Government for setting up the industrial unit in ‘backward district’, hence, it is not the industrial unit from which this benefit was derived by the assessee but the Government‘s Scheme allowing such benefit, depending upon the location of the industry. Thus, it is stated that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the order of the AO.
Regarding the fertilizer subsidy, the Ld. DR submits that the concession by the Government was merely an aid to the assessee and there is no merit in the contentions of the assessee that fertilizer concessions being related to the sale of fertilizer products flew directly from the operations of the industrial undertaking. Referring to the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Ld. DR submits that it was not the industrial undertaking which yielded the subject income by way of sales tax concession but the scheme of the Government which made it possible for the assessee to receive those amounts and the existence of such scheme was not an essential part of the industrial undertaking. Referring to the order of the AO that in the case of M/s Hind Lever chemicals Ltd. (AY 2002-03) as to how the assessee was not eligible for section 80IB deduction in respect of fertilizer concession/subsidy, the Ld. DR submits that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in respect of the above ground of appeal be affirmed.
20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below.
As mentioned earlier, it is the contentions of the Ld. counsel that for the year under reference, HLCL (since amalgamated with the assessee) filed its return of income on 28.11.2003 claiming a refund of ₹ 2.87 crores ; in the said return of income, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7.59 crores was made in respect of its 3 new industrial undertakings located in category ―B‖ industrially backward district i.e. in Midnapore, West Bengal; the effective date of amalgamation was 01.06.2004 and the appointed date of amalgamation was 01.04.2002 i.e. HLCL amalgamated with the assessee-company w.e.f. 01.04.2002 ; after the amalgamation, the assessee-company filed its revised return of income for the year under consideration incorporating the working results of HLCL. Also it is the contentions of the assessee that during the course of assessment proceedings, vide letter dated 30.11.2005, section 80IB claim of ₹ 7,59,59,000/- (same as that claim in original return of HLCL) @ 30% of the profits (this being the 4th year of claim) in respect of erstwhile HLCL was made.
Regarding fertilizer price concession from the Government of ₹ 105.40 crores, it is the contentions of the assessee that to support industries, certain portion of price is reimbursed by Central Government in the name of fertilizer concession ; while selling the fertilizer, the assessee-company recovers part cost from farmers and part cost through Government by way of concession; the subsidy is related to the business activity of the assessee as the subsidy claim arises only upon sale of the fertilizer to the farmers ; the subsidy is nothing but a difference between cost of sales and MRP indicated by the Government; it is the subsidy amount which alone permits the manufacturer, like the present assessee to recover is uncovered cost of production including distribution cost and minimal margin allowed; it is only pursuant to the sale of fertilizer to the farmers would the assessee be eligible to receive subsidy; the fertilizer concession received by the assessee is nothing but part of sales proceeds, which cannot be excluded while working out profit u/s 80IB of the Act;
In respect of sales tax remission of ₹ 3.31 crores, it is the contentions of the assessee that it sold its products at notified prices and charged sales tax in the invoices ; in the books of accounts, sales tax collected was shown as sales tax incentive and not deposited the Government as per the Industrial Development Policy of the State; sales tax remission/subsidy is arising only on account of sales from fertilizers to the farmers, which clearly indicates that the sales tax remission has direct nexus with the activities of the industrial undertaking
Having examined the materials available on record, we find that the AO has not examined in proper perspective the above contentions of the assessee. As the above contentions have a direct bearing on the above ground of appeal, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to pass an order afresh on the above 5th ground along with the additional ground raised for the first time before us, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. As the matter has been restored to the file of the AO, we are not adverting to the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel. Thus the 5th ground of appeal along with the additional ground is allowed for statistical purposes.‖
010. On careful reading of the order of the coordinate bench as above, it is apparent that, as per paragraph number 16 the coordinate bench reproduced ground number 5 and admitted the additional ground as per page number 15 – 16 of the order. In paragraph number 17 the coordinate bench also considered the order of the learned CIT – A wherein it has been categorically held by him that since tax remission and subsidy received on account of the scheme of the government for setting up the industrial unit in the backward district is not derived from the business of the industrial undertaking relying upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Andaman timber chemicals Ltd 244 ITR 204 and CIT versus sterling foods 237 ITR 579. Thus, the learned CIT – A held that the Sales tax incentive and the subsidy has its genesis in the scheme of the government and not in the profits derived from the industrial undertaking per se. vide paragraph number 18 the arguments of the learned authorised representative and vide paragraph number 19 the arguments of the learned departmental representative were considered.
Thereafter in paragraph number 20, the coordinate bench reached its decision giving the detailed reasons.
After examining the material available on record the coordinate bench set-aside the order of the learned CIT – A and restore the matter to the file of the learned assessing officer to pass an order afresh in the fifth ground as well as the additional ground raised by the assessee.
011. The coordinate bench on miscellaneous application filed by the assessee recalled the above order vide paragraph number 12 as under:-
’12. We noted that the facts relating to the issue whether the Sales tax incentive or fertilizer subsidy is capital receipt or a revenue receipt, the adjudication by the tribunal is not there. Hence, without commenting on the facts, we recall the order of the tribunal on this issue and the direct the registry to fix this appeal.‘
012. The learned authorised representative on the basis of the above order passed by the coordinate bench stated that two issues are required to be decided. The first one with the respect to the sales Tax subsidy, whether the same is income of the assessee or not. The second issue was with respect to the fertilizer subsidy whether, it is derived from eligible business of industrial undertaking, or not and therefore, whether it is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the act or not. It is further claimed that if the Sales tax subsidy is held to be an income, and not capital receipt, then whether such sales tax subsidy is also eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the act or not by deciding whether same is income derived from the business of industrial undertaking or not.
013. The learned authorised representative referred to the West Bengal incentive scheme 1999 effective for five years from 1/4/1999 – 31/3/2004. He submitted that the above benefits are available to the assessee as the unit of assessee is setup in Midnapore district. He said that according to the scheme the assessee is eligible for sales tax deferment/remission on sale of finished goods for a period of nine years. He submitted the copy of the scheme, which is placed at item number 11 of the paper book. He also submitted that the purpose of the scheme will decide whether the sum is taxable or not. He submitted that once the above sum is held to be not chargeable to income tax, the question of its deduction is eligible and income u/s 80 IB of the income tax act does not arise. To support case of the assessee, he relied on decision of the coordinate bench in case of Bushan steel Ltd 63 com 96 (2015), Chaphalkar Bros (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC), Kirloskar oil engines Ltd (2014) 364 ITR 88 (Bom) and Mapco industries Ltd (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC).
014. The learned departmental representative stated that the above issue was not before the learned assessing officer or the learned CIT – Al and therefore it should go back to the learned assessing officer for examination of the claim of the assessee with respect to the exemption/non-chargeability of tax on sales tax remission. He submitted that the purpose and intent of subsidy was never verified by the learned assessing officer and additional ground was raised first time before the coordinate bench and therefore the scheme vis-a-vis its taxability should be examined by the learned assessing officer and therefore the matter should go back to the learned AO.
015. In rejoinder the learned authorised representative submitted that the scheme was available with the CIT – A and therefore now it cannot be set-aside back to the file of the learned lower authorities as the issue may be decided by the coordinate bench.
016. In the additional ground number 3 by the assessee it is challenged that the sales tax remission benefit derived by the assessee is not chargeable to income tax as it is a capital receipt. We have carefully perused the West Bengal incentive scheme 1999, which is notified on 22 /6/1999 to extend incentive for promotion of industries in the state. The assessee has setup unit in Midnapore district and therefore according to clause number [7] this area was covered under the scheme> According to scheme, assessee has option either to defer the payment of the Sales tax or remission of the Sales tax on sale of finished goods. It is apparent that assessee has opted for the remission of sales tax due for payment by the unit for nine years which is subject to ceiling of 100 % of the gross value of the fixed capital asset of the approved project. On reading of the scheme, it is apparent that it is formulated to extend incentive for promotion of industries in the state.
017. As held by Honourable Supreme court in CIT Madras Vs Ponni Sugar [2008] 174 Taxman 87 (SC)/[2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC)/[2008] it is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant. In the present case when once the object of subsidy is to industrialize state, it is capital receipt. All the judgments cited before us also lay down the same ratio. Even otherwise subsidy is included in the definition of Income u/s 2 (24) (xviii) with effect from 1/4/2016. Accordingly, we hold that Sales tax incentive money received of Rs 430,61,201/– being the amount retained by the company in accordance with Section 41 of the West Bengal sales tax act, 1944 read with the West Bengal incentive scheme, 1999 was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax under the income tax act.
018. Accordingly additional ground 3 raised by the assessee is allowed.
019. With respect to the fertilizer subsidy, whether it is income derived from the industrial undertaking or not, the learned authorised representative submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Meghalaya steel Ltd 383 ITR 279 (SC). He also referred to paragraph number 14.4 of the order of the learned CIT – A to show that the fertilizer subsidy is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act. It was submitted selling price of the fertilizer was much less than the maximum retail price therefore subsidy is given. It was explained that in case of DAP the maximum retail price was fixed by the government at ₹ 9350 per metric ton and the selling price of the assessee was only Rs. 8458/- per MT and therefore the assessee was not able to sell the products and the maximum retail price fixed by the government and the subsidy given by the government was merely an aid to the assessee. He also referred to item number 10 of the paper book where the concession scheme for the controlled phosphate and potassic fertilizer is submitted. He also submitted that the above subsidy is granted for ‘to give impetus to the stagnating demand for these fertilizers and to ameliorate the nutrient imbalance in the soil, which is essential for sustaining the desired growth in agricultural productivity.‘ He submitted that in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Meghalaya steels Ltd (SC) this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The learned authorised representative further referred to the provisions of Section 80 IB of the income tax act and stated that the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from ‘any business‘ referred to in a specified sections then subject to terms and conditions such profits are allowed as deduction at appropriate percentage. He further submitted that the subsidy of fertilizer is received in the business of manufacturing of the fertilizer by the assessee and therefore, such fertilizer subsidy is income derived from the business of industrial undertaking. Therefore, same is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the act.
020. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and stated that in the earlier years the issue has been decided against the assessee and therefore now the issue has been correctly set-aside by the coordinate bench to the file of the learned assessing officer for verification whether the income from fertilizer subsidy is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act or not.
021. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused orders of the lower authorities. The fact shows fertilizers produced by the appellant are under the retention-pricing scheme. Accordingly, the government decides the maximum retail price and the difference between costs less maximum retail price is paid to the appellant by the way of product subsidy. These are in fact part of the cost recovered from the government and it is directly related to the sale of fertilizer to the farmers. For example, the cost of fertilizer production and its distribution to the manufacturer is ₹ 300 and if it is sold to the farmers at the maximum retail price of ₹ 200 and the balance price of Rs 100/- is recovered from the government by way of the above subsidy. Thus, the manufacturers are paid the above subsidy to enable them to sell the fertilizers at or below the indicated maximum retail price to the farmers.
The issue is whether that Rs 100/- received from Government is part of profit derived from the business of eligible undertaking or not.
022. We find that now the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Meghalaya steel (supra) wherein it has been held as Under:-
“9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before embarking on a discussion of the relevant case law, we think it is necessary to set out Sections 80-IB and 80-IC insofar as they are relevant for the determination of the present case.
“80-IB Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings
