Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Income-tax Reference Case No. 189 of 1987

Attorney(S)

Partridge
Assessee: M/s King
M.V. Seshachala
For Revenue: H. Raghavendra Rao

Judges

R. Ramakrishna.
Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat

Acts

sections 70 and 71 read with sub-section (2) of section 32 and sub-section (2) of section 32A,
INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT
SECTION 84 INCOME TAX ACT 1961
section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,
provisions of sections 28, 29, 32 and 32A
INCOME TAX ACT 1961
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,
FINANCE ACT 1972

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Reference under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 (Assessment Year 1979-80)

Factual and Procedural Background

The court considered a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 1979-80. Four specific questions were framed for determination concerning:

whether depreciation should be allowed on value of roads, walls and fences;
whether value of work-in-progress, machinery and equipment in transit and under erection should be included in capital for computing relief under section 80J;
whether deduction under section 35 should be allowed on capital represented by work-in-progress and machinery in transit and under erection in the assessee's research division; and
whether exemption under section 80J should be allowed on commercial profits.

The opinion notes that the first three questions were not in dispute because earlier decisions were considered to cover them against the Revenue. The fourth question (regarding the scope of section 80J and the computation of profits for relief) required detailed consideration.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation on the value of roads, walls and fences?
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed inclusion of the value of work-in-progress, machinery and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for the purpose of calculating relief under section 80J?
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow deduction under section 35 of capital represented by work-in-progress and machinery in transit and under erection in the assessee's research division?
Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow exemption under section 80J on commercial profits?

Arguments of the Parties

Assessee's Arguments

For questions 1–3, the assessee relied on earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court holding that depreciation can be allowed on roads, walls and fences and that certain capital components should be included for relevant computations; consequently the Appellate Tribunal's orders should be upheld on those points.
On question 4 (section 80J relief), the assessee contended that the deduction under section 80J depends on the "profits and gains derived from" the industrial undertaking in a commercial sense and that, while computing those profits and gains, the assessee may ignore deductions such as depreciation and investment allowance which are taken into account at the stage of computing total income. The assessee argued that a unit's commercial profit prior to such statutory deductions should be sufficient to attract section 80J relief, subject to other conditions.
The assessee pointed to specific figures (for example, for watch factory No. 3) showing that commercial profit before depreciation and investment allowance would be sufficient to attract section 80J relief while profit after those deductions would not; therefore the assessee argued in favour of a commercial-profits approach for section 80J.

Revenue's Arguments

The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. (reported) and argued that the profits and gains of a new industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J must be computed in the same manner as they are computed for determining the total income chargeable to tax. That, according to the Revenue, requires deducting depreciation and investment allowance attributable to the unit before applying section 80J.
Learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized passages from the Patiala Flour Mills decision stating that there are not two modes of computation and that the profit or gain for section 80J must be computed as for total income (i.e., after allowable deductions such as depreciation and investment allowance).
The Revenue also referred to Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT to support its contention that statutory provisions with similar phraseology had been construed to require computation in accordance with specified sections; the Revenue relied on that line of authority to argue for treating the unit's profits with statutory deductions applied.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 23	Assesses entitlement to depreciation on value of roads and similar items as part of building-related assets.	The court relied on this decision to answer the first question in the affirmative and against the Revenue — i.e., depreciation on roads, etc., is allowable.
CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court decision referenced)	Holds that a building is not confined to walls and roof; roads within factory premises may be regarded as part of buildings.	Referred to in support of allowing depreciation on roads within factory premises; used with Bangalore Turf Club to resolve Question 1 in favour of the assessee.
Ravi Machine Tools (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 459	Upheld claims similar to the assessee's regarding inclusion of work-in-progress and machinery in transit/under erection for capital computation (context given in text).	Followed by the court to answer Questions 2 and 3 in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. [1978] 155 ITR 640 (Supreme Court)	Holds that profits or gains of a new industrial undertaking for the purpose of the relevant provision must be computed in the same manner as for determining total income; there cannot be two separate modes of computation and past losses/depreciation once set off cannot be re-adjusted.	The court analyzed this decision closely. While the Revenue relied on it to argue that depreciation and investment allowance must be deducted prior to applying section 80J, the court interpreted the decision as not supporting a compartmentalized computation that would allow deductions to be effectively counted twice; the court found that the Patiala Flour Mills ratio did not advance the Revenue's position in the way it was advanced.
Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT	Interpreted provisions with similar phraseology (involving computation of profits for specific concessional provisions) to indicate that a new industrial unit should not be treated completely in isolation; recognized principles about setting off losses and allowances across businesses.	Referred to by the Revenue; the court discussed it and concluded that Rajapalayam does not support the Revenue's strict compartmentalization argument and, on balance, the decision does not advance the Revenue's case.
CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)	Discussed the distinction between "commercial profits" and "assessable profits" and held that certain incentive provisions should be construed having regard to commercial sense and purpose of the provision (beneficial construction).	Relied upon by the assessee and noted by the court to support the view that incentive provisions (like section 80J or analogous sections) should not be interpreted restrictively and that commercial profits concept may be relevant in computing profits for such provisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in a stepwise manner:

For Questions 1–3 the court found no real dispute because earlier authorities had already decided similar issues against the Revenue. Specifically, CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. and the Supreme Court's observations in the Gwalior Rayon case supported allowing depreciation on roads, walls and fences (Question 1). Ravi Machine Tools (P) Ltd. v. CIT supported the assessee's claims on Questions 2 and 3 concerning inclusion of work-in-progress and machinery for certain capital and deduction computations. Accordingly, Questions 1–3 were answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
Question 4 required a more detailed analysis. The court summarized the factual posture: the statement of case was short, the Appellate Tribunal's order was sketchy, and the Revenue had accepted an earlier Appellate Tribunal order for the assessment year 1977-78 but later sought a reference when that order was followed in the instant case.
The court set out the competing contentions regarding section 80J. The assessee argued that the "profits and gains derived from" the industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J could be understood commercially and that the assessee could, in computing those profits of the unit, ignore deductions such as depreciation and investment allowance which are applied at the stage of determining total income. The Revenue relied on Patiala Flour Mills to contend that the profits for section 80J must be computed in the same manner as profits for total income and that deductions under sections such as 28, 29, 32 and 32A must therefore be applied to the unit's profits before considering section 80J relief.
The court examined the Patiala Flour Mills decision closely. It acknowledged the passage emphasised by the Revenue that the profit or gain for the purposes of the concession must be computed as for total income. However, the court noted immediately following passages in Patiala that clarified that past losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate that had been set off against other income in earlier assessment years cannot be adjusted over again (i.e., they cannot be given effect twice). The court treated this follow-up observation as negating the strict compartmentalized computation urged by the Revenue.
The court also reviewed Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT and Orient Paper Mills Ltd., which support a purposive and beneficial construction of incentive provisions and recognize the differing senses in which "profit" may be used (commercial profits versus assessable profits). The Calcutta High Court's observation that incentive provisions should be construed to serve their economic and social objective was noted.
Taking these authorities together, the court concluded that section 80J does not compel treating the unit as an isolated compartment for all statutory computation purposes, nor does it require a restrictive construction that would defeat the purpose of the incentive. The court considered the object of section 80J as a beneficial provision intended to encourage new industrial undertakings and to accelerate economic growth, and held that there was no reason to construe it restrictively in the Revenue's favour.
Having applied the cited authorities and the statutory language, the court held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessee's claim in respect of section 80J in the facts of the case before it.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The reference questions were answered in the assessee's favour. Specifically, the court answered all four referred questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue, and it held that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in the orders under challenge.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The assessee's position is upheld on all four questions: depreciation on roads/walls/fences is allowable (Question 1); value of work-in-progress and machinery in transit/under erection is to be included for capital computation for section 80J (Question 2); deduction under section 35 on such capital in the research division is allowable (Question 3); and section 80J relief can be allowed on the commercial-profits approach applied in the present facts (Question 4).
The court's analysis relied on existing authorities and purposive construction of incentive provisions; the opinion does not purport to lay down a novel principle beyond the application and reconciliation of cited precedents. The decision resolves the reference in the particular factual and procedural context presented.

Note: This summary is produced exclusively from the content of the provided opinion. No information has been added beyond the opinion text.

Show full summary ...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. H.M.T. Ltd.

1. The question referred for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, respect of the assessment year 1979-80 read thus :

"1. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation on value of roads, wall and fences ?

2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to include the value of work-in-progress, machinery and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for the purpose of calculating relief under section 80J ?

3. Whether, on the fact in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow deduction under section 35 of the capital as represented by work in-progress and machinery in transit and under erection in the assessee's research division ? and

4. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstance's of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right is law in upholding the order or the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow exemption under section 80J on commercial profits ?"

2. There is no dispute that the first three question are now covered against the Revenue.

3. The first question is practically self-contained about the fact. This court in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 23, has held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the value of roads, etc. Recently, the Supreme Court has also expressed the same view by pointing out that a building cannot be confined to a structure having walls and roof over it. Roads within the factory premises are to be regarded as part of its buildings (vide CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ). The first question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

4. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 also contain the basic facts. Under similar circumstances, the claim of the assessee was upheld by this court in Ravi Machine Tools (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 459. Following the aforesaid decision questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

5. However, the fourth question requires a detailed consideration.

6. The statement of the case is bald except stating that the assessee claimed relief under section 80J based on commercial profits an not profit computed under the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, again is sketchy. The Appellate Tribunal simply states that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the orders of the Appellate Tribunal for earlier assessment years on this question and, therefore the said order will have to be upheld.

7. The respective contentions of the parties could be gathered from the order of the Appellate Tribunal made in respect of the assessment year 1977-78. We are told that the Revenue accepted the said order and the present question is agitated subsequently by seeking reference when the said order was followed by the Appellate Tribunal in the instant case.

For the assessment year 1977-78 the assessee contended that the profits before deduction of depreciation and investment allowance were sufficient to cover section 80J relief and therefore, it should be granted. For example, it was pointed out that, in respect of the assessee's unit, watch factory No. 3, the net profit prior to depreciation was Rs. 62,17,831. The depreciation as charged to the profit and loss account was Rs. 36,80,690 and the net profit as per the audited profit and loss account was Rs. 25,37,141. The contention was that this was sufficient to attract section 80J. It was pointed out that the profit before deduction of depreciation and investment allowance was the same, i.e. Rs. 62,17,831. However, if depreciation and investment allowance are deducted from it, the profit will be only Rs. 21,58,739. In such a situation, section 80J relief will not be available because the relief admissible thereunder inclusive of deficiency of past years was Rs. 47,02,207. Similar figures were given regarding other units also. According to the assessee, depreciation the profit and gain derived from the unit in question and that can be shifted to a later state while considering the total income of the assessee from the all sources.

8. The Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee and relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P Ltd. as well as an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. P. Ltd. [1978] 155 ITR 640. Learned counsel for the Revenue also relied upon the said Supreme Court decision in support of his contention.

9. Section 80J provides for deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertaking or shops or hotels business. The main section reads :

"80J. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profit and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or ship or the business of a hotel, to which this section applies there shall in accordance with the subject to the provision of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the deduction, if any, admissible to the assessee under section 80HH or section 80HHA) so much of the amount thereof as does not exceed the amount calculated at the rate of six per cent. per annum on the capital employed in the industrial undertaking or ship or business of the hotel, as the case may be computed in the manner specified in sub-section (1A) in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year (the amount calculated as aforesaid being hereafter in this section, referred to as the relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year)."

In spite of certain variations by amendments, the substance of the section is the sum same as for the relevant year.

10. The assessee may have several units from which the assessee derives income and therefore, the gross total income of the assessee would include the income from all these units. When one of the units is an industrial undertaking envisaged by section 80J, a deduction is given from the profits and gains derived from such industrial undertaking and this deduction is calculated at the rate of six per cent. per annum. If there is no profit and gain from such a unit, the benefit of this deduction will not be available. In other words, the deduction based on the percentage or the capital employed given in respect of an industrial undertaking depends upon its profits and gains.

11. The assessee contends that while computing these profits and gains of the unit concerned, it is pen to the assessee to ignore deduction available in respect of depreciation and investment allowance. In a given case, the depreciation an investment allowances pertaining to one unit may be deducted out of the gross total income of the assessee since there is no such bar under the Act. Section 32 permits depreciation allowance. This can be deducted from the gross income of the assessee in view of section 28 read with section 29 of the Act. There is no restriction that the depreciation allowed under section 32 has to be only from the income of the said unit. The position under section 32A regarding investment allowance also is the same. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that, since depreciation and investment allowance are taken note of at the end for the purpose of "profit and loss account", while considering the profits and against and gains from a particular unit, it need not be considered because section 80J nowhere restricts the concept of profits and gains and therefore if there is a commercial profit derived from the particular unit, that should suffice to attract section 80J, subject to the other conditions. Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, strongly relied on certain observation of the Supreme court in Patiala Flour Mills' case . In the said case, the assessee had several units from which the assessee was deriving income. It had put up a cold storage plant during 1967-68. However the assessee did not make any profit in the business of cold storage plant for several years but there was profit from the other business of the assessee. The assessee adjusted its loses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the cold storage plant against the profit from the other business in computing the total income of the assessee during the earlier assessment years and those were completed absorbed. By the time of the assessment year and these were completely absorbed. By the time of the assessment year 1970-71 there was nothing to be carried forward and set off in respect of losses, depreciation allowance etc. in respect of the cold storage plant. During the said year, year however the cold storage plant made a profit. Since there was deficiency under section 80J regarding the cold storage plant, the assessee claimed the profit earned from the said plant during the assessment year 1970-71. The Revenue contended that for the purpose of section 80J, the losses as well as the depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the business of could storage for the past assessment years should be first adjusted against the profit of the said year (1970-71). The Income-tax Officer, in the said case, proceeded to assume that for the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (3) section 80J, the cold storage business was to be treated in isolation and its profit was to be computed as if the earlier year's losses, etc., has not been set off against the profit from other businesses. The Supreme court affirmed the decision of the High court and negatived the claim of the Revenue. In this regard at page 646, the Supreme Court held :

"Now, it is clear from the language of sub-section (1) of section 80J that the profits or gains of a new industrial undertaking from which deduction of relevant amount of capital employed during a particular assessment year is allowable under that provision, are the profits or gains deduction includible in the computation of the total income chargeable to tax. Therefore, whatever be the profits or gains of the profits of the new industrial undertaking computed for the purpose of arriving at the total income chargeable to tax, would have to be taken to be the profit or gain for applying the provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 80J. There are no two modes of computation of the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 80j, one for determining the total income chargeable to tax and the other for applying the provision contained in the sub-section. The language of sub-section (1) of section 80J is clear and explicit and leaves no doubt that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the deduction provided in that sub-section, have to be computed in the same manner in which they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and a deduction has then to be made from such profits or gains, of the relevant amount of capital employed during the assessment year in question. It is impossible to see how, by any process of construction, even by turning and twisting the language of sub section (1) of section 80J, it can be held that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated must be computed in manner different from that in which they would be computed in determining the total income chargeable to tax. sub-section (1) of section 80J does not create a legal fiction that for the purpose of applying the provision contained in that sub-section, the profit or gain of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the new industrial undertaking were the only business of the assessee right from the date of its establishment or the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment year were not set off against the profit from other business. If the construction of sub-section (1) of section 80J contended for and on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, it would lead to the assured result that there would be two species of profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking, one for inclusion in the total income chargeable to tax and the other for determining the availability of the deduction under sub-section (1) of section 80J. That would be plainly contrary to the express language of sub-section (1) of section 80J. The proper construction of sub-section (1) of section 80J must, therefore, be taken to be that the profit or gain of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act in the same manner as they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and it must follow a fortiori that if the losses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment years have been fully set off against the profit of the assessee from other business or for the matter of that, against the income of the assessee under may other head by reason of sections 70 and 71 read with sub-section (2) of section 32 and sub-section (2) of section 32A, no part of such losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate would be liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking for applying the provision contained in sub-section (1) of section 80J. The same mode of computation must prevail also in applying the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 80j, because that sub-section provides for setting off the carried forward amount of deficiency of the past assessment years against 'the profits and gains referred to in sub-section (1)' of section 80j, as computed after allowing inter alia, the deduction admissible under that sub-section and therefore if for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 80j, the profit or gains of the new industrial undertaking are to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and no part of the losses, depreciation allowance or development rebate for the past assessment year which has been fully set off against the profit from other business or income under any other head is liable to be adjusted over again in computing the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking no such adjustment would equally be permissible in applying the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 80j."

12. According to Mr. Raghavendra Rao, the profit and gain of the new industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing the deduction under section 80J, have to be computed in the same manner in which they would be in determining the total income chargeable to tax and a deduction is then to be made, from such profit or gains of the relevant amount of capital employed. Therefore, necessarily, the deductions regarding investment allowance and depreciation will have to be made from the total income of that unit. The implication of this contention is to apply the provisions of sections 28, 29, 32 and 32A separately to the unit in question. According to Mr. Raghavendra Rao, that is the clear ratio of the Supreme Court decision. The following sentence as per the above observation was emphasised in support of this submission (at page 646) :

"It is impossible to see how, by way process of construction even by turning and twisting the language of sub-section (1) of section 80j, it can be held that for the purpose of allowing the deduction contemplated under that section the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking must be computed in manner different from that in which they would be computed in determining the total income chargeable to tax."

13. The next sentence immediately following the above, however makes the position quite clear and negatives the contention now advanced by extract. The further observation also shows that the loesses, depreciation allowance and development rebate in respect of the assessee from other business. We may also note there, while computing the taxable income of an assessee nowhere the Act restricts the deduction pertaining to depreciation and investment allowances regarding one unit to be deducted only from the income of that unit.

14. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. v. CIT was referred to by learned counsel for the revenue. The matter arose regarding section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1992, the phraseology of which is somewhat similar to the present section 80J. The Supreme Court was also concerned with the then section of 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which resembled the present section 80J. The Revenue relied on section 15c(3) of the old act which stated that the profits or gains of an industrial undertaking to which the said section applied shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 10. From this, it was contended that, in effect the income from the unit in question will have to be separately computed and deduction are also to be made accordingly regarding depreciation. The contention of the Revenue, that while working out the trading result of the new unit, other activity carried on by the assessee should not be taken into consideration was not accepted by the Supreme court. The Supreme court pointed out that where the assessee carried on several businesses, he is entitled under section 10 of the old act to set off loss in one business against profits in another. If there is any loss in a business carried on by the assessee by reason of the profits of such business not being sufficient to absorb the depreciation allowance, such loss can be set off against the profit of another business carried on by the assessee. If, however, there are no profits chargeable under the head "Business or profession" or if the profits chargeable under that head are insufficient to cover the depreciation allowance, the amount of the allowance, to the extent to which it is not absorbed, can be set off against profits chargeable under may interpreting a provision like section 15C was pointed out at page 783 :

"The law of income-tax in a modern society is intended to achieve various social and economic objectives. It is often used as in instrument for accelerating economic growth and development. Section 15C is a provision introduced in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with a view to carrying out this objective and it is calculated to encourage setting up new industrial undertakings in the country."

As to section 15C(3) the Supreme Court pointed out at page 788 :

"There is nothing in sub-section (3) of section 15c or in any other provision of the Act which requires that in computing the profits or gains if a new industrial undertaking under section 10, depreciation allowance or development rebate in respect of the new industrial undertaking for the past assessment year should be taken into account, even if it had been set off against income under may other head and there is no unabsorbed depreciation allowance or development rebate to be carried forward. It is indeed difficult to see how effect can be given to depreciation allowance and development rebate twice over, once in the past assessment years and again in the assessment year in question. To give effect to depreciation allowance or development rebate for the past assessment years, even through it has been set off and absorbed completely against the total income of the assessee for those assessment years would be to allow a deduction not warranted by any provision of the Act and indeed it would be going contrary to the express provision of proviso (b) to clause (vi) and Explanation 1 to clause (vib). sub-section (3) of section 15c clearly does not have any such effect. What it does is not more than provide as to how the profit or gain derived from new industrial undertaking referred to in sub-section (1) of section 15c shall be computed. If sub-section (3) of section 15c has not been enacted, it might have been matter of some controversy as to what is meat by the expression 'the profits or gains derived from new industrial undertaking'. Does it mean commercial profits or gains or profits or gains chargeable to tax or does it have any other connotation ? It was to set this controversy at rest that sub-section (3) of section 15c enacted that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 10. It may be noted that sub-section (3) of section 15c does not enact any legal fiction providing that the profits or gains of the new industrial undertaking shall be computed as if the new industrial undertaking were the only business of the assessee from the date of its establishment or the past year, depreciation or development rebate had not been set off against other income of the assessee."

15. The above decision also indicates that the new industrial unit is not to be treated as a compartment by itself while computing its profits and gains for the purpose of section 80J. Section 80J is a beneficial provision intended to encourage establishment of new industrial undertaking provision a means of accelerating economic growth and development. There is no reason as to why we should interpret this beneficial provision restrictively which would affect the purpose behind the enactment of the said provision. The above decision in no way advances the case of the Revenue as contended by its learned counsel. The Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that the deduction under section 80J of the Act for the current year gas to be allowed before any deficiency of earlier years could be considered. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee, relied strongly on the observation of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd. . The question arose under section 80-I of the Act before it was deleted by the Finance Act, 1972. The said section reads thus (at page 767) :

"(1) In the case of a company to which this section applies, where the gross total income includes any profits and gains attributable to any priority industry, there shall be allowed in accordance with and subject to the provision of this section, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to eight per cent. thereof in computing the total income of the company."

16. The question arises as to how to compute the profits again attributable to a priority industry. The real question was whether the profits of a priority industry. The real question was whether the profits of a priority industry could be set off against the unabsorbed development rebate of priority industry itself. While considering the question, speaking for the Division Bench, Sabyasachi Mukharji J. (as he then was), observed at page 768 :

"The allowance of initial depreciation or development rebate unlike normal depreciation was in no sense a deductible item of cost or an expenditure in the process of settlement of commercial profits; although it did not form part of the assessable profits undoubtedly it did form part of the commercial profits."

Further, the Bench observed that it was a well-known concept in the taxation law that the term "profit" in the various section of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not got the same meaning; sometimes it meant the assessable profits and sometimes it meant commercial profits and therefore the meaning attributable to a particular section in the Act depends upon the purpose with which it is enacted. Section 80-I therein was enacted as a kind of an incentive for the growth of priority industries. The court industry must be computed in the commercial sense and not in accordance with such provision of the Act.

17. We do not find anything in any of the decision cited before us as above which supports the contentions of the Revenue. Section 80J nowhere compels the computation of the profits and gains, apart from an industrial undertaking, by treating it as separate entity for all purpose without reference to commercial expediency and practice.

18. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the claim of the assessee.

19. Consequently, the fourth question referred above is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. H.M.T. Ltd.

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Reference under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 (Assessment Year 1979-80)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Assessee's Arguments

Revenue's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. H.M.T. Ltd.

Comments