Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Himatasingike Seide Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Himatasingike Seide Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Himatasingike_Seide_10A_10B_Unabs_Depr.pdf)


S. 10A/10B (when an “exemption” provision): Unabsorbed depreciation (and business loss) of same (s. 10A/10B) unit brought forward from earlier years have to be set off against the profits before computing exempt profits

The assessee set up a 100% EOU in AY 1988-89. For want of profits it did not claim benefits u/s 10B in AYs 1988-89 to 1990-91. From AY 1992-93 it claimed the said benefits for a connective period of 5 years. In AY 1994-95, the assessee computed the profits of the EOU without adjusting the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1988-89. It claimed that as s. 10B conferred “exemption” for the profits of the EOU, the said brought forward depreciation could not be set-off from the profits of the EOU but was available to be set-off against income from other sources. It was also claimed that the profits had to be computed on a “commercial” basis. The AO accepted the claim though the CIT revised his order u/s 263 and directed that the exemption be computed after set-off. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal reversed the CIT. On appeal by the department, the High Court (CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd 286 ITR 255 (Kar)) reversed the Tribunal and held that the brought forward depreciation had to be adjusted against the profits of the EOU before computing the exemption allowable u/s 10B. On appeal by the assessee to the Supreme Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

Having perused the records and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Civil Appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly

Note: S. 10A/10B(6) as amended by the FA 2003 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2001 provides that depreciation and business loss of the eligible unit relating to the AY 2001-02 & onwards is eligible for set-off & carry forward for set-off against income post tax holiday. Also, consider the impact on Yokogawa India Ltd 341 ITR 385 (Kar) where it was held that even after s. 10A/10B were converted into a “deduction” provision w.e.f 1.4.2001, the benefit of relief u/s 10A/10B is in the nature of “exemption” with reference to “commercial profits” and that as the income of the s. 10A unit has to be excluded at source itself before arriving at the gross total income, the question of setting off the loss of the current year’s or the brought forward business loss (and unabsorbed depreciation) against the s. 10A profits does not arise.

Related Posts:

  • In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
  • Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…
  • CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd (Supreme Court) In the instant case, if the deductions on freight, telecommunication and insurance attributable to the delivery of computer software under Section10A of the IT Act are allowed only in Export Turnover but not from the Total Turnover then, it would give rise to inadvertent, unlawful, meaningless and illogical result which…
  • CIT vs. S. V. Gopala Rao (Supreme Court) The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a Circular under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act,1961. In fact, it amended the provisions contained in Rule 68B of the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which otherwise have statutory force. Such legislative provisions cannot be amended by…
  • PILCOM vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The obligation to deduct Tax at Source under Section 194E of the Act is not affected by the DTAA and in case the exigibility to tax is disputed by the assesse on whose account the deduction is made, the benefit of DTAA can be pleaded and if the case is…
  • UOI vs. Tata Tea Co. Ltd (Supreme Court) This Court, however, while considering the nature of dividend in the above case held that although when the initial source which has produced the revenue is land used for agricultural purposes but to give to the words ‘revenue derived from land’, apart from its direct association or relation with the…

Related Judgements

  1. Synco Industries vs. ITO (Supreme Court) 

    If the assessee has suffered a loss in one unit, the same has to be set-off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA etc and if the resultant figure is a loss, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable;
    Read more ›
  2. CIT vs. Oriental Insurance (Supreme Court) 

    Where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed against a PSU on the ground that an application for permission of the COD had not been obtained within the period of 30 days as laid down in ONGC’s case, held that there was actually no rigid time frame indicated by…
  3. Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories…
  4. PNB Finance vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    As the undertaking was transferred as a going concern and there was no evidence on record to show that the compensation had been arrived at on an item-wise allocation of the various assets of the undertaking and there was no “cost of acquisition” of the undertaking, capital gains was…
  5. CIT vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (Supreme Court) 

    S. 94(7) was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to curb claim of such loss. However, the effect of s. 94(7) is that only losses to extent of dividend have to be ignored by the AO and not the entire loss. Losses over and above the dividend are still allowable even…
One comment on “Himatasingike Seide Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)”
  1. gopal nathani says:
    October 14, 2013 at 11:20 am

    notes at the bottom are suggesting that this decision may not impact position of cases that are post 2001 amendment period. May be true or may not be so.

    Perhaps looks like may not be so. In the best interest of assessees it may be prudent to withdraw claims and shun litigaton or to at least pay taxes to save on interest burden. now there is a circular of the board also. its better to take a call now at the least in jurisdictions outside of Delhi , Bombay and Karnataka.gopal nathani

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*