|
s. 80-IA relief has to be deducted before computing s. 80-HHC relief
In ACIT Vs Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court in SCM Creations 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether Rogini Garments was impliedly overruled was referred to a five Member Special Bench which upheld the correctness of Rogini Garments and held:
(1) SCM Creations is not an authority on how s. 80-IA (9) is to be applied because the effect and implementation of above provision was neither raised, nor examined nor decided by the Court. A decision is an authority for the proposition that it decides and not what can logically be deduced there from. A point not raised nor argued at the Bar cannot be said to be the ratio of the decision. Accordingly SCM Creation does not impinge upon the ratio of Rogini Garments.
(2) On merits, Rogini Garments was correctly decided and did not require reconsideration. The language of s. 80-IA (9)/80-IB (9A) was clear and unambiguous and was required to be given effect to. Deduction of profit and gains allowed u/s 80-IA/80-IB had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which deduction u/s 80HHC had to be computed.
Related Judgements
- M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that…
- Jashan Textile Mills vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s 80-HHC. M/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that…
- Narang Overseas vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai 5 Member Special Bench)
(i) The judgement of the SC in Mariappa Gounder vs. CIT 232 ITR 2 does not decide whether mesne profits received against wrongful possession of property is in the nature of revenue receipt or capital receipt. It merely decides the year of taxability of such profits on the assumption…


to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from 
