| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | Anil R. Dave J, Dipak Misra J |
| SECTION(S): | 80HHC, 80IA, 80IA(9) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | exemption |
| COUNSEL: | Dr. Rakesh Gupta |
| DATE: | December 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | January 29, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Controversy on whether s. 80-1A(9) mandates that the amount of profits allowed as deduction u/s 80-1A(1) has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking while computing deduction under any another provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 referred to larger Bench | |
The Supreme Court had to consider whether section 80-1A(9) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 mandates that the amount of profits allowed as deduction under section 80-1A(1) of the Act has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking while computing deduction under any another provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961? It was noted that the Bombay High Court had in Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) dissented from the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi).
While Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave took the view that the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi) lays down the correct position in law and allowed the appeals of the Revenue, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra dissented and held that the law laid down by the Bombay High Court had in Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) lays down the correct position in law and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue.
In view of difference of opinion, the matters have been referred to a larger Bench in terms of signed reportable judgment. The Registry has been directed to place the matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
whenever two kinds of judgements earlier delivered, what is beneficial to the tax payer that may be the right judgement, as the section is obviously suffers from inaccuracies is obvious.
why again put the taxpayer unnecessary additional financial as also time strain would be called sociological jurisprudence
here the issue is before the Apex court, then the hon court essentially evaluate whether the sections are rightly drafted, if not use the doctrine of severability is my view, i do not wish the court waste its time on the government irresponsibly drafted sections in the statutes; that only would make government better accountable to citizens;
we find several times petitions in courts a lot of times very badly drafted by advocates themselves; so these days clients want their petitions are vetted by better senior advocates who have command in English especially in legal drafting which itself a great art ;these days advocates get sannads without having right capacity to draft petitions too.
i have seen at the high court some clients get into quarrel with the new novice advocates;
in fact, bar councils failed to properly evaluate the skill level of a of LL.Bs in their legal drafting, unfortunately;
respect a person if he is really skilled else sideline them that way credibility could e established before clients; if no client whom our great advocate would serve and could earn some decent income pls.
this is not to offend our fellow advocates but ask them to introspect to become a better stuff in the eyes of the public clientele.