REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7427 OF 2012 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore ... Appellant Versus M/s. Micro Labs Ltd. ... Respondent WITH C.A. NO. 14295 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6445 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14297 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6829 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14298 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6926 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14299 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14300 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8603 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14301 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8879 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14302 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8923 OF 2011, C.A. NO. 14303 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10243 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14304 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.13992 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14305 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.17319 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14306 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21221 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14307 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21222 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14308 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21224 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14309 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.22128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14310 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.23918 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14311 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.24682 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14312 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25006 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14313 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25664 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14314 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25755 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14315 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25987 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14316 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25988 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14317 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26002 OF 2011, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by C.A. NO.14318 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26025 OF 2011, Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.12.11 15:30:49 IST Reason: C.A. NO.14319 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26246 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14320 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26250 OF 2011, 1 C.A. NO.14322 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26418 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14323 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26818 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14324 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.27270 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14325 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.28128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14326 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.29796 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14327 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31207 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14328 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31208 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14329 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33936 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14330 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14331 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.227 OF 2012, C.A.NOS. 14332-14333 OF 2015 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.907-908 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14334 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.909 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14335 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.910 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14336 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.931 OF 2012, C.A. NO. 14337 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2291 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14338 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2292 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14339 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.5762 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14340 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6111 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14341 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6677 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14342 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8476 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14343 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.9472 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14344 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.12874 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14345 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.19923 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14346 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.34816 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14347 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10591 OF 2013, C.A. NO.7847 OF 2012, C.A. NO.4544 OF 2013, C.A. NO.5341 OF 2013 AND C.A. NO.1890 OF 2015. JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted in all Special Leave Petitions. 2. These are several appeals which involve same issue as in Civil Appeal No.7427 of 2012 and therefore, all appeals have been 2 heard together at request of learned counsel appearing for both sides but for purpose of deciding all these appeals, I have considered facts of C.A.No.7427 of 2012, which are as under : 3. Being aggrieved by judgment delivered in ITA 471 of 2008 dated 11th July, 2011 by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, this appeal has been filed by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore. appellant has been referred to hereinafter as Revenue , whereas respondent M/s. Micro Labs Ltd. has been referred to as Assessee . 4. Assessee was aggrieved by Order dated 11 th January, 2008 passed in ITA No.367/Bang/07 by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench and had, therefore, approached High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. High Court allowed appeal and therefore, Revenue has filed this appeal. 5. question which had to be considered by Tribunal as well as by High Court was whether, while considering deduction under provisions of Section 80-IA or/and 80-IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ), Assessee is also entitled to deduction in respect of profits and gains under provisions of Section 80HHC of Act or whether Assessee is entitled to deductions under aforestated all three Sections in 3 respect of same profits. Upon perusal of aforestated Sections and looking at facts of case, Tribunal had come to conclusion that Assessee was not entitled to deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of Act but High Court did not agree with said conclusion arrived at by Tribunal and decided in favour of Assessee to effect that though Assessee had claimed and was allowed deductions under Section 80HHC of Act, Assessee was also entitled to deductions under provisions of Section 80-IB of Act in respect of same profits. 6. Thus, in this appeal what is to be considered is whether Assessee was entitled to deductions claimed by it under aforestated Sections as decided by High Court in favour of Assessee. case of Revenue is that looking at provisions of aforestated Sections, Assessee is not entitled to deductions under all aforestated Sections of Act. 7. On aforestated subject, different views have been taken by different High Courts and therefore, this appeal had been admitted. High Court of Bombay has decided cases in favour of Assessee whereas different view has been taken by High Court of Delhi. 8. For purpose of better understanding of issue, relevant extracts of said Sections of Act have been reproduced 4 hereinbelow: 80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (1) Where gross total income of Assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-Sections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of Section, be allowed, in computing total income of Assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this Section. (2) to (12) xxx xxx xxx (13) provisions contained in sub-Section (5) and sub-Section (7) to (12) of Section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to eligible business under this Section. 80-IA. Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc. (1) to (8) xxx xxx xxx (9) Where any amount of profits and gains of (undertaking) or of enterprise in case of Assessee is claimed and allowed under this Section for any assessment year, deduction to extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under heading C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes , and shall in no case exceed profits and gains of such eligible business of (undertaking) or enterprise, as case may be. 80HHC. Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.-(1) Where Assessee, being Indian company or person (other than company) resident in India, is engaged in business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this Section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this Section, be allowed, in computing total income of 5 assessee, [a deduction to extent of profits, referred to in sub-Section (1B)] derived by assessee from export of such goods or merchandise: Provided that if assessee, being holder of Export House Certificate or Trading House Certificate (hereafter in this Section referred to as Export House or Trading House, as case may be), issues certificate referred to in clause (b) of sub-Section (4A), that in respect of amount of export turnover specified therein, deduction under this sub-Section is to be allowed to supporting manufacturer, then amount of deduction in case of assessee shall be reduced by such amount which bears to [total profits derived by assessee from export of trading goods, same proportion as amount of export turnover specified in said certificate bears to total export turnover of assessee in respect of such trading goods. (1A) xxx xxx xxx (1B) For purposes of sub-Sections (1) and (1A), extent of deduction of profits shall be amount equal to (i) eighty per cent thereof for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2001; (ii) seventy per cent thereof for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2002; (iii) fifty per cent thereof for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2003; (iv) thirty per cent thereof for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2004; and no deduction shall be allowed in respect of assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2005 and any subsequent assessment year. 9. So far as Civil Appeal No.7427 of 2012 is concerned, which is 6 against judgment delivered by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, as stated hereinabove, same has been decided in favour of Assessee and in circumstances, Revenue has preferred present appeal as it has been aggrieved by way in which deductions were permitted by High Court from same profits and gains of business to Assessee under Sections 80HHC and 80-IB of Act. According to case of Revenue, Tribunal was right in deciding case of Assessee and High Court committed error while interpreting legal provisions of Sections referred to hereinabove. 10. learned counsel appearing for Revenue had submitted that intention behind enactment of aforestated three Sections of Act was to see that no assessee gets deductions twice under provisions of aforestated Sections. In nutshell, submission on behalf of Revenue was that having once obtained deduction under provisions of Sections 80-IB or/and 80-IA of Act, no assessee can then avail deductions under Section 80HHC of Act in respect of same profits. It had been specifically stated on behalf of Revenue that Section 80-IA(9) of Act had been amended with effect from 1st April, 2000 so as to see that total deduction does not exceed total profits and gains of business and in respect of same profits, deductions under Section 80HHC and Sections 80-IA or 7 80-IB together cannot be allowed. 11. learned counsel appearing for Revenue had read and tried to interpret each of aforestated Sections and specifically put his emphasis on that part of Section which prevents assessee from taking advantage of having deductions from both of Sections referred to hereinabove. 12. Section 80HHC, according to learned counsel appearing for Revenue, deals with deductions which can be availed by assessee who is engaged in business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which said Section applies. said Section deals with manner in which deduction can be claimed by assessee. 13. So far as Section 80-IA is concerned, it pertains to deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in business of infrastructure development. Section 80-IA(9) of Act specifically provides that when any deduction is claimed and allowed under provisions of Section 80-IA of Act, deduction to extent of such profits and gains cannot be allowed under any other provisions under heading C. Deductions in respect of certain incomes of Chapter in which Section 80HHC has been included. Similarly, it had been submitted 8 by learned counsel that so far as Section 80-IB is concerned, it pertains to deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than business of infrastructure development. He had further submitted that Section 80-IB(13) also provides that certain provisions of Section 80-IA would also apply to Section 80-IB, like provisions of Sub-Section (5) and Sub-Sections (7) to (12) of Section 80-IA. 14. learned counsel had, thus, submitted that by virtue of provisions of Section 80-IB(13), provisions applicable to industrial undertakings to whom deductions under Section 80-IA are granted, would also apply to certain extent. By virtue of aforestated provisions of Section 80-IB(13), provisions of Section 80-IA(9) would also apply to industrial units who claim benefit of deduction under Section 80-IB of Act. 15. According to learned counsel, Section 80-IA(9) is clear to effect that once deduction is claimed under Section 80-IA, no deduction can be claimed under heading C of Chapter VIA. Section 80HHC is included in heading C of Chapter VIA and therefore, if assessee claims and is allowed deduction under Section 80-IA or Section 80-IB, he cannot be allowed any deduction under Section 80HHC or any other Section that falls under heading C of Chapter VIA of Act. 9 16. Now, let us look at case with which we are concerned. Assessee in main appeal is having several industrial units having different activities or different businesses. Assessee being also in business of export, had also claimed and was allowed deduction under Section 80HHC. In spite of fact that Assessee had claimed deduction in respect of provisions of Section 80-IB, Assessee had also claimed deduction under Section 80HHC with respect to same profits. Assessing Officer had allowed deductions under Section 80HHC without considering fact that Assessee had also claimed and was allowed deduction under provisions of Section 80-IB. In aforestated circumstances, Commissioner of Income-Tax, exercising his power under Section 263 of Act vide order dated 26 th February, 2007, observed that Assessing Officer was not correct in allowing deductions under Section 80-IB as well as under Section 80HHC and therefore, directed Assessing Officer to revise assessment order. 17. said order passed by Commissioner of Income-Tax had been challenged by Assessee before Tribunal and Tribunal was pleased to dismiss appeal and therefore, Assessee had filed appeal before High Court which has been allowed. Being aggrieved, Revenue has filed this appeal. 18. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for 10 Assessee in Civil Appeal No.7427 of 2012 and other connected appeals had submitted that view expressed by High Court is absolutely correct. According to learned counsel, statute wants to give deduction to Assessee in respect of both activities, namely in respect of export of goods as well as with respect to infrastructure development etc. and as assesses in all cases are engaged in business of export as well as in business of infrastructure development etc., assesses are entitled to claim deductions in respect of export business as well as infrastructure development activities, etc. 19. According to learned counsel, if there is any confusion or any ambiguity in tax law, benefit thereof should be given to assessee and High Court of Karnataka and some other High Courts in country had rightly permitted assesses to claim deductions under both Sections. Thus, counsel appearing for assesses had supported reasons given by High Court and had submitted that appeals filed by Revenue deserve dismissal. 20. I have heard learned counsel and considered judgments referred to by them and provisions of Act concerning subject of appeals. 11 21. Upon perusal of Sections referred to hereinabove and judgments discussed during course of hearing, I am of view that High Court of Karnataka is not right when it decided to allow deductions in respect of same profits under Section 80HHC as well as under Section 80-IA or Section 80-IB. 22. One can very well see from provisions of Section 80-IA(9) that if Assessee is engaged in infrastructure development as well as in export business, he cannot claim deduction of his entire profits and gains under provisions of Section 80HHC as well as under Section 80-IA or/and Section 80-IB of Act. 23. Section 80-IA(9) is quite unambiguous, which clearly provides that if assessee claims any deduction under provisions of Section 80-IA, then assessee cannot claim deduction to extent of such profits and gains under heading C of Chapter VIA of Act, which, in present case, was claimed and wrongly allowed to Assessee. 24. Section 80HHC, which pertains to deduction in respect of profits and gains from export business, is included under heading C , of Chapter VIA of Act. 25. If assessee claims and is allowed any deduction under Section 80HHC, then to extent to which deduction has been granted to 12 him under Section 80-IA or/and 80-IB, he cannot be allowed further deduction under Section 80HHC. language is not only very clear, but is also absolutely unambiguous, as it says : Where any amount of profits and gains of (undertaking) or of enterprise in case of Assessee is claimed and allowed under this Section for any assessment year, deduction to extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under heading C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes , and shall in no case exceed profits and gains of such eligible business of (undertaking) or enterprise, as case may be. 26. Admittedly, Assessing Officer had allowed deductions not only under Section 80HHC but also under Section 80-IB in respect of entire profits and gains of business of Assessee. In opinion of Commissioner, it was not proper and therefore, he had taken matter in revision under Section 263 of Act. He, ultimately, directed Assessing Officer to re-assess income in light of observations made in order passed under Section 263 of Act and said order passed by Commissioner had also been confirmed by Tribunal. However, order of Tribunal, when challenged before High Court, was quashed and set aside. 27. In instant case, I also find that intention of legislature is very clear to effect that if assessee claims any deduction under provisions of Sections 80-IA or/and 80-IB, he cannot claim 13 deduction to extent to such profits and gains which had been claimed and allowed under provisions of Section 80HHC of Act, because Section 80HHC is included in heading C of Chapter VIA of Act. 28. In my opinion, High Court was in error while permitting Assessee to get benefit in respect of Section 80HHC as it did not take into account fact that profits in respect of which deduction was allowed under Section 80HHC had also been previously allowed under Section 80-IB. In my opinion, this is not permissible under Section 80-IB(13) read with Section 80-IA(9) because by virtue of Section 80-IB(13) provisions of Section 80-IA(9) are also applicable to Section 80-IB. 29. For aforestated reasons, I am not in agreement with view expressed by High Court and therefore, I decide appeals in favour of Revenue by holding that Assessee who had claimed and had been allowed deductions in respect of profits under Section 80-IB, could not have been allowed deductions in respect of same profits under Section 80HHC of Act. 30. Other issues, though referred to in memo of appeals, had not been pressed seriously and therefore, I am not deciding same by keeping said issues open. 14 31. appeals, thus, stand disposed of as allowed in favour of Revenue with no order as to costs. .. .J. (ANIL R. DAVE) NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 10, 2015. 15 16 REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7427 OF 2012 ASSIT. COMMR. OF I.T. BANGALORE ... Appellant Versus M/S MICRO LABS LTD. ... Respondent WITH C.A. NO. 14295 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6445 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14297 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6829 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14298 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6926 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14299 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14300 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8603 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14301 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8879 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14302 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8923 OF 2011, C.A. NO. 14303 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10243 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14304 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.13992 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14305 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.17319 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14306 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21221 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14307 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21222 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14308 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21224 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14309 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.22128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14310 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.23918 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14311 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.24682 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14312 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25006 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14313 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25664 OF 2011, 17 C.A. NO.14314 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25755 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14315 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25987 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14316 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25988 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14317 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26002 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14318 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26025 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14319 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26246 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14320 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26250 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14322 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26418 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14323 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26818 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14324 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.27270 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14325 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.28128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14326 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.29796 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14327 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31207 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14328 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31208 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14329 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33936 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14330 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14331 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.227 OF 2012, C.A. NOS. 14332-14333 OF 2015 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.907-908 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14334 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.909 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14335 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.910 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14336 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.931 OF 2012, C.A. NO. 14337 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2291 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14338 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2292 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14339 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.5762 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14340 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6111 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14341 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6677 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14342 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8476 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14343 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.9472 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14344 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.12874 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14345 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.19923 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14346 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.34816 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14347 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10591 OF 2013, C.A. NO.7847 OF 2012, C.A. NO.4544 OF 2013, C.A. NO.5341 OF 2013 AND C.A. NO.1890 OF 2015. 18 JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in special leave petitions. 2. Having perused judgment of my esteemed brother, for whom I have deepest respect, I am unable to concur with view expressed by him. Hence, I pen separate opinion. 3. In this batch of appeals, issue that really arose before different High Courts is : Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that section 80-1A(9) of Income-Tax Act, 1961 mandates that amount of profits allowed as deduction under section 80-1A(1) of Act has to be reduced from profits of business of undertaking while computing deduction under any another provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of Income-tax Act, 1961? 4. Be it stated, I have taken said question from judgment of High Court of Bombay in Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of 19 Income Tax and another1 and said judgment has been placed reliance upon by High Court of Bombay in appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26002 of 2011. High Court allowing appeal of assessee did not agree with view of High Court of Delhi and opined thus:- We find it difficult to subscribe to views expressed by Delhi High Court in interpreting provisions of section 80-1A(9). In that case, in fact, counsel for Revenue had argued (see para 38 of judgment) that section 80-1A(9) applies at stage of allowing deduction and not at stage of computing deduction under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A. It was argued that in matter of grant of deduction, first stage is computation of deduction and second stage is allowance of deduction. Computation of deduction has to be made as provided in respective sections and it is only at stage of allowing deduction under section 80-1A(1) and also under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, provisions of section 80-1A(9) come into operation. While accepting arguments advanced by counsel for Revenue, it appears that Delhi High Court failed to consider important 1 [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) 20 argument of Revenue noted in paragraph 38 of its judgment. Moreover, without rejecting argument of Revenue that section 80-1A(9) applies at stage of allowing deduction and not at stage of computing deduction, Delhi High Court could not have held that section 80-1A(9) seeks to disturb method of computing deduction provided under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A of Act. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to concur with views expressed by Delhi High Court in case of Great Eastern Exports [2011] 332 ITR 14. For same reason, we find it difficult to subscribe to views expressed by Kerala High Court in case of Olam Exports [2011] 332 ITR 40. In result, we hold that section 80-1A(9) does not affect computability of deduction under various provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, but it affects allowability of deductions computed under various provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, so that aggregate deduction under section 80-1A and other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A do not exceed 100 per cent of profits of business of assessee. Our above view is also supported by Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 772 dated December 23, 1998 ([1999] 235 TR (St.) 35), wherein it is stated that section 80-1A(9) has been introduced with view to prevent taxpayers from claiming repeated deductions in respect of same amount of eligible income and that too in excess of eligible profits. Thus, object of section 80-1A(9) being not to curtail deductions computable under various provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, it is 21 reasonable to hold that section 80-1A(9) affects allowability of deduction and not computation of deduction. To illustrate, if Rs. 100 is profits of business of undertaking, Rs. 30 is profits allowed as deduction under section 80-1A(1) and deduction computed as per section 80HHC is Rs. 80, then, in view of section 80-1A(9), deduction under section 80HHC would be restricted to Rs. 70, so that aggregate deduction does not exceed profits of business. 5. High Court of Delhi in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax2 while interpreting said provision has applied test of literal construction and observed:- We are not in position to subscribe to contention of learned counsel for assessees that where Legislature intended to deduct amount out of some other deduction different phraseology was used as noticed above. This was sought to be demonstrated by refereeing to sub-section (5) of section 80HHB, sub-section (4) of section 80HHBA and sub-section (4) of section 80-1E etc. which provisions start with use of non obstante clause. Merely because section 80-1B is not worded in similar fashion that would not mean that we have to do violence to plain language used in that provision, which is capable of only one meaning. particular section of enactment, intention of which is otherwise 2 [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi) 22 manifest, cannot be read by adopting such insidious approach, by referring to other sections. It is well known that Legislature adopts different ways and means in order to achieve its goal and there is no justification for insistence on identical language. Likewise, as rightly pointed out by Special Bench of Tribunal, notice and objects of accompanying reasons are only aid to construction. Such aid to construction is needed when literal reading of provision leads to ambiguous result or absurdity. 6. To appreciate controversy it is absolutely necessary to understand scheme of Act and purpose and schematic impact of provisions which are required to be interpreted in context of Chapter in which they occur. 7. Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act ) is arranged chapter-wise. Chapter I deals with preliminary definitions, subject to context in issue. Chapter II gives contours of charge for levy of income tax and ambit and scope of total income and certain other matters. Chapter III relates to incomes, which do not form part of total income at all. Chapter IV relates to computation of total income under different sources, i.e., six sub heads, which have been divided 23 into parts (A) to (F), Chapter V deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in assessee s total income. Chapter VI postulates aggregation of income from different sources or set off or carry forward of loss computed under different sources and to next assessment year. Chapter VIA, with which we are concerned, deals with deductions to be made in computing total income. said Chapter is divided into four parts namely, to D. said Chapter becomes operative on reaching last stage of computation of income from different sources as per provisions of Chapter I to VI. It is to be borne in mind that each chapter deals with independent subject matters at different stages. In other words, before reaching stage of invoking provisions of Chapter VIA, assessee is required to work out gross total income by applying provisions upto stage of Chapter VI. It is in this context that in part of Chapter VIA under heading General it is postulated in sub-section(1) to Section 80A that assessee shall be 24 allowed from his gross total income in accordance with and subject to conditions of this Chapter, deductions specified in Sections 80C to 80U. As per mandate of sub-section (2) to Section 80A, aggregate amount of such deductions in Chapter VIA cannot exceed gross total income of assessee. Sub-section (3) stipulates that where assessee is association of persons or body of individuals to whom specified deductions have been allowed, then no deduction under specified section shall be allowed in relation to share of such member of association of persons or body of individuals. 8. Having stated scheme as is reflective from Chapter, it is necessary to reproduce Section AB which is relevant. It reads as follows:- Deductions to be made with reference to income included in gross total income. 80AB. Where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section included in this Chapter under heading C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes in respect of any income of nature specified in that section which is included in gross total 25 income of assessee, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, for purpose of computing deduction under that section, amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with provisions of this Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) shall alone be deemed to be amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by assessee and which is included in his gross total income . aforesaid section stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 80C to 80U for purpose of computing deduction under aforesaid section, amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with provisions of Act before making any deduction, shall alone be deemed to be income derived or received by assessee and included in his gross total income. section, non-obstante provision, overriding any section in part C and postulates that deduction under each section shall be separately computed in respect of income of that nature, which is received or derived by assessee and included in gross total income. This provision is significant and accepts that assessee may be entitled to multiple 26 deductions under Section 80C to 80U, when conditions precedent stipulated in section are satisfied. 9. expression gross total income has been defined in sub-section(5) to Section 80B and it reads as under:- 80B. In this Chapter- (5) gross total income means total income computed in accordance with provisions of this Act, before making any deduction under this Chapter; On conjoint and harmonious reading of Sections 80AB and 80B(5), it is apparent that once gross total income is computed in accordance with provisions of Act but before making any deduction under provisions of Sections 80C to 80U. Gross total income is computed by applying provisions upto Chapter VI, without or before making any deduction under Sections 80C to 80U, but quantum of income which qualifies for deduction under Sections 80C to 80U would be amount of income of that nature, derived or received by assessee. 27 10. As I perceive, there is no difficulty to this extent. difficulties arise when there are overriding provisions, which tend to control deduction, because deduction has been allowed in another provision. For example, assessee may be entitled to multiple deductions, such as under Section 80J, which relates to deduction in respect of profits and gains from duly established industrial undertakings or ships or hotel business in certain cases; under Section 80HH which relates to deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward areas; under Section 80HHC which relates to deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from exports outside India of goods and merchandise; under Section 80HHD which relates to deduction herein assessee is engaged in business of hotel or tour operator and has earning in convertible foreign exchange, etc. Thus, when assessee qualifies for deduction under separate sections, which could be on percentage of profits or earnings, 28 controversy can arise. contours or scope of Chapter VIA in such situations was noticed by this Court in Joint CIT v. Mandideep Engineering and Packaging Industries Private Limited3, and following observations were made:- 1. point involved in present case is whether sections 80HH and 80-I of Income-tax Act, 1961, are independent of each other and therefore new industrial unit can claim deductions under both sections on gross total income independently or that deduction under section 80-I can be taken on reduced balance after taking into account benefit taken under section 80HH. 2. Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd v. CIT reported in [1998] 299 ITR 123 took view that both sections are independent and, therefore, deductions could be claimed both under sections 80HH and 80-I on gross total income. Against this judgment special leave petition was filed in this court which was dismissed on ground of delay on July 21, 2000 (see [2000] 245 ITR (St.) 71). decision in J.P. Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [1998]229 ITR 123 (MP) was followed by same High Court in case of CIT v. Alpine Solvex P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special leave petition against this decision was dismissed by this court on January 12,2001, (see [2001] 247 ITR (St.) 36). This view has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning 3 (2007) 292 ITR 1 (SC) 29 thereby that Department has accepted view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 Bom ; CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj); CIT v. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (Raj); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v. S.B. Oil Industries P. Ltd [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT v. SKG Engineering P. Ltd. [2005] 119 DLT 673 and CIT v. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. [2006] 200 CTR (305). 3. Since special leave petitions filed against judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and Department has not filed special leave petitions against judgments of different High Courts following view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Department having accepted view taken in those judgments cannot be permitted to take contrary view in present case involving same point. Accordingly, civil appeal is dismissed. No costs. 11. For purpose of clarity, I would note that Court upheld view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.B. Tobacco Products Private Limited v. CIT4, holding that no provision has been made in Section 80I to provide for deduction of gross total income computed as per 4 (1998) 229 ITR 123 30 mandate of Section 80AB read with Section 80B(5), towards deduction allowed under Section 80HH for purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80I. Reference was made to sub-section (9) of Section 80HH as it then existed and was applicable before 1st, April, 1981 as it had made reference only to Section 80J. Thus it was held that sub-section (9) to Section 80HH by itself meant that deduction allowed under Section 80HH was to be reduced from gross total income for granting benefit under Section 80J. Therefore, benefit under Section 80I was to be granted on gross total income and not on income reduced by amount allowed under Section 80HH. Section 80HH and 80I operate independently and deductions have to be allowed independently subject to condition that total amount of deduction under Chapter VIA cannot exceed gross total income . In other words, gross total income on which deduction under Section 80HH or 80I would be computed with reference to gross total income without reducing from it deduction permitted under 31 Section 80HH or 80I or for that matter under any of sub-sections under Section 80C or 80U. 12. It is beyond cavil that aforesaid legal position continued to exist up to 31 st March, 1999. With effect from 1 st April, 1999, amendments were made by inserting sub-section (9) to Section 80IA and sub-section 13 to Section 80IB. These provisions read as under:- 80-IA. (9) Where any amount of profits and gains of undertaking or of enterprise in case of assessee is claimed and allowed under this section for any assessment year, deduction to extent of such profits and gains shall not be allowed under any other provisions of this Chapter under heading C.- Deductions in respect of certain incomes , and shall in no case exceed profits and gains of such eligible business of undertaking or enterprise, as case may be. 80-IB. (13) provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of Section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to eligible business under this Section. 13. In present set of appeals, I am dealing with provisions after 1st April, 1999, i.e., post amendment provisions and question raised is whether deduction 32 allowed under Section 80IA is to be reduced from gross profits while computing deduction under Section 80HHC. controversy arises because assessees herein are entitled to deduction both under Section 80IA, which is restricted to stipulated percentage of profits and gains derived from specified business, and under Section 80HHC again stipulated percentage of profits derived from exports of goods and merchandise are entitled for deduction. Section 80HHC specifically prescribes formula or method for computing said deduction in sub-section (3), which at present reads as follows:- 80HHC. (3) For purposes of sub-section(1), - (a) where export out of India is of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by assessee, profits derived from such export shall be amount which bears to profits of business, same proportion as export turnover in respect of such goods bears to total turnover of business carried on by assessee; (b) where export out of India is of trading goods, profits derived from such export shall be export turnover in respect of such trading goods as reduced by direct costs and indirect costs attributable to such 33 export; (c) where export out of India is of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by assessee and of trading goods, profits derived from such export shall, - (i) in respect of goods or merchandise manufactured or processed by assessee, be amount which bears to adjusted profits of business, same proportion as adjusted export turnover in respect of such goods bears to adjusted total turnover of business carried on by assessee; and (ii) in respect of trading goods, be export turnover in respect of such trading goods as reduced by direct and indirect costs attributable to export of such trading goods: Provided that profits computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section shall be further increased by amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being profits on sale of licence acquired from any other person), and clauses (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, same proportion as export turnover bears to total turnover of business carried on by assesse: Provided further that in case of assessee having export turnover not exceeding rupees ten crores during previous year, profits computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section or after giving effect to first proviso, as case may be, shall be further increased by amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiid) or clause (iiie), as case may be, of section 28, same proportion as export turnover bears to 34 total turnover of business carried on by assessee: Provided also that in case of assessee having export turnover exceeding rupees ten crores during previous year, profits computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section or after giving effect to first proviso, as case may be, shall be further increased by amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiid) of section 28, same proportion as export turnover bears to total turnover of business carried on by assessee, if assessee has necessary and sufficient evidence to prove that, - (a) he had option to choose either duty drawback or Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being Duty Remission Scheme; and (b) rate of drawback credit attributable to customs duty was higher than rate of credit allowable under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being Duty Remission Scheme: Provided also that in case of assessee having export turnover exceeding rupees ten crores during previous year, profits computed under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section or after giving effect to first proviso, as case may be, shall be further increased by amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiie) of section 28, same proportion as export turnover bears to total turnover of business carried on by assessee, if assessee has necessary and sufficient evidence to prove that, - (a) he had option to choose either duty drawback or Duty Free Replenishment 35 Certificate, being Duty Remission Scheme; and (b) rate of drawback credit attributable to customs duty was higher than rate of credit allowable under Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission Scheme. Explanation. For purposes of this clause, rate of credit allowable means rate of credit allowable under Duty Free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission Scheme calculated in manner as may be notified by Central Government: Provided also that in case computation under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section is loss, such loss shall be set off against amount which bears to ninety per cent of- (a) any sum referred to in clause (iiia) or clause (iiib) or clause (iiic), as case may be, or (b) any sum referred to in clause (iiid) or clause (iiie), as case may be, of section 28, as applicable in case of assessee referred to in second or third or fourth proviso, as case may be, same proportion as export turnover bears to total turnover of business carried on by assessee. Explanation. For purposes of this sub-section, - (a) adjusted export turnover means export turnover as reduced by export turnover in respect of trading goods; (b) adjusted profits of business means profit of business as reduced by profits derived from business of export out of India of trading goods as 36 computed in manner provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3); (c) adjusted total turnover means total turnover of business as reduced by export turnover in respect of trading goods; (d) direct costs means costs directly attributable to trading goods exported out of India including purchase price of such goods; (e) indirect costs means costs, not being direct costs, allocated in ratio of export turnover in respect of trading goods to total turnover; (f) trading goods means goods which are not manufactured or processed by assessee. 14. As is manifest, deduction under sub-section (a) is computed by ascertaining eligible profits, which is profits of business in same proportion as export turnover in respect of such goods, bears to total turnover of business. separate formula is prescribed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) to Section 80HHC in case of trader exporter and under clause (c) in respect of assessee, who is both manufacturer/processor and trader exporter. Section is detailed one and provides complete method and mechanism to compute deduction under Section 80HHC. 15. It is in context of Section 80HHC that sub-section (9) 37 to Section 80I has come up for interpretation. There is no dispute that sub-section (9) to Section 80I would be applicable as assessee would be entitled to deduction under Section 80IA as well as under Section 80HHC. contention of Revenue is that said sub-section mandates that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed not only on profits of business as reduced by amounts specified in clause (baa) and sub-section (4)(B) of Section 80HHC but by also reducing amount of profit and gains allowed as deduction under Section 80IA(1) of Act. In other words, gross total income eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC would be less or reduced by deduction already allowed under Section 80IA. Thus, gross total income eligible for deduction would not be gross total income as defined in sub-section (5) to Section 80B read with Section 80B, but would be gross total income computed under sub-section (5) to Section 80B read with Section 80AB less deduction under Section 80IA. example will make position 38 clear. Supposing assessee has gross total income of Rs.1,000/- and is entitled to deduction under Sections 80IA and 80HHC and deduction under Section 80IA is Rs. 300/-, then gross total income of which deduction under Section 80HHC is to be computed would be Rs. 700/-, and not Rs. 1,000/-. 16. On other hand, case of assessee is that gross total income would not undergo change or reduction for purpose of Section 80HHC. two deductions will be computed separately, without deduction allowed under Section 80IA being reduced from gross total income for computing deduction under Section 80HHC. reason being that sub-section (9) to Section 80IA does not affect computation of deduction under Section 80HHC, but postulates that deduction computed under Section 80HHC so aggregated with deduction under Section 80IA does not exceed profits of business. 17. High Court of Bombay in case of Associated 39 Capsules Private Ltd (supra) has accepted contention of assessee observing and recording following reasons:- 29. Section 80-IA(9) consists of three parts: First part where any amount of profits and gains of undertaking/enterprise is claimed and allowed under section 80-IA(1) for any assessment year, then Second part deduction to extent of profits and gains allowed under section 80-IA(1) shall not be allowed under any other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A of Act; and Third part in no case deduction allowed shall exceed profits and gains of business of undertaking/enterprise. 30. dispute in present case is, whether second part of section 80-IA(9) seeks to disturb mechanism of computing deduction provided under section 80HHC(3) of Act? second part of section 80-IA(9) provided that deduction to extent of profits allowed under section 80-IA(1) shall not be allowed under any other provisions. It obviously means that deductions that are allowable under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A would be allowed to extent of profits as reduced by profits allowed under section 80-IA(1). second part of section 80-IA(9) does not even remotely refer to method of computing deduction under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A. Thus, section 80-IA(9) seeks to curtail allowance of deduction and not computability of deduction under any other provisions under heading C of Chatper VI-A of Act. 40 31. How to compute deduction allowable under section 80HHC(1) is set out in section 80HHC(3). In case of manufacturer-exporter, section 80HHC(3)(a) provides that deduction under section 80HHC(1) has to be computed as per formula: 32. Clause (baa) in section 80HHC defines term profits of business for purposes of section 80HHC to mean profits of business as computed under head Profits and gains of business or profession as reduced by amounts specified therein. Therefore, in case of manufacturer-exporter, deduction under section 80HHC(1) is statutorily required to be computed on profits of business as reduced by amounts specified in clause (baa) of section 80HHC. Unless, it is specifically provided by statute, profits of business for purpose of section 80HHC cannot be reduced by any amount save and except amount specified in clause (baa) of section 80HHC itself. Section 80-IA(9) of Act does not expressly or impliedly provide that amount of profits allowed as deduction under Section 80-IA(1) should be reduced from profits of business for purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC or computing deduction under any other provisions in heading C of Chapter VI-A and, therefore, contention of Revenue to that effect cannot be accepted. 33. In case of trade-exporter, section 80HHC(3) (b) provides that deduction under section 80HHC(1) has to be computed on export turnover reduced by direct costs and indirect costs 41 attributable to goods or merchandise exported by assessee. argument of Revenue that under section 80-IA(9) amount of profits allowed under section 80-IA has to be deducted from profits of business while computing deduction under section 80HHC is accepted, then section becomes unworkable, because in case of trader-exporter, deduction under section 80HHC is computed on exporter turnover and not on profits of business. words export turnover and profits of business are separately defined under section 80HHC. Therefore, in case of trader-exporter, section 80-IA(9) can be applied only after deduction under section 80HHC(3)(b) is computed. Similarly, in case of manufacturer/processor-exporter, section 80-IA(9) would be applicable while allowing deduction computed under section 80HHC(3)(a) of Act. 34. If words used in section 80-IA(9) were shall not qualify , then, probably it could be said that Legislature intended to affect quantum of deductions computable under other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, because amount that qualifies for deduction alone forms basis for computing deduction. word qualify is expression relatable to computation of deduction. word allowed is relatable to allowing deduction that is computed. word allowed cannot be equated with word qualify . Since Section 80-IA(9) uses words shall not be allowed , in our opinion, section seeks to restrict allowance of deduction and not computation of deduction under any other sections under heading C of Chapter VI-A of Act. 42 35. Wherever Legislature intended that deduction allowed under one section should affect computation of deduction under other provisions of Act, Legislature has expressly used words to that effect. It may be noted that sections 80HHD(7) and 80-IA(9) (presently 80-IA(9)) were introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 1988, with effect from April 1, 1999. Section 80HHD (7) provides that deduction allowed under section 80HHD (1) shall not qualify to that extent for deduction under any other provisions of Chapter VI-A under heading C, whereas, section 80-IA(9A) provides that deduction allowed under section 80-IA(1) shall not be allowed under any other provisions of Chapter VI-A under heading C. Similarly, in section 80-IC(5), words used are that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of Act, in computing total income of assessee, no deduction shall be allowed under any other section contained in Chapter VI-A or section 10A or section 10B in relation to profits and gains of undertaking. Thus, Legislature has used specific words whenever it intended to affect computation of deduction. As words used in section 80-IA(9) relate to allowance and not computation of deduction, it cannot be inferred that section 80-IA(9) is inserted with view to affect computation of deduction under any other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A. 36. It is well established in law that language of statute must be read as it is, and statute must not be read by adding or substituting words unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Since section 80-IA(9) uses words shall not be allowed , it is not 43 permissible to read section 80-IA(9) by substituting above words with words shall not qualify or by adding words shall not be allowed in computing deduction under any other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A of Act. When plain and simple meaning of section 80-IA(9) can be ascertained from words used in section, it would not be proper to construe section by substituting or adding words as suggested by Revenue . 18. Delhi High Court, on other hand, in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax5 has held as under:- 44. expressions in these provisions are very crucial which are deduction to extent of such profits and word and occurring therein. first expression very clearly signifies that if assesses is claiming benefit of deduction of particular amount of profits and gains under section 80-IA, to that extent profits and gains are to be reduced while calculating deduction under heading C of Chapter VI-A of Act. Further word and is disjunctive which would mean that other provision is independent of first one namely total deductions should not exceed profits and gains in particular year. Even layman who has some proficiency in English would understand meaning of this provision in manner we have explained above. It would, therefore, be clear that this provision aims at achieving two independent objectives delineated above. It cannot be 5 [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi) 44 limited to second objective alone thereby annihilating first altogether and making it otiose. If we accept contention of learned counsel for assesses, it would lead to this result which has to be avoided. 45. Law on interpretation is clear. If language of statute is plain and capable of one and only one meaning, that obvious meaning is to be given to said provision. Rules of interpretation are applied only if there are ambiguities when purpose of interpretation is to ascertain intention of law i.e., mens legis, it is based on assertion by adopting plain meaning of statute in absence of any ambiguity. 19. aforesaid judgment gives stamp of approval to opinion expressed by Special Bench of Tribunal in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ragini Garments6 wherein it has been observed that several sections like 80HHA, 80HHA(5) and 80HHA(6) provide for modification or change of manner and mode of computation or preferential treatment of one deduction over other. These sections have to be read harmoniously. Though Section 80AB starts with non-obstante clause, provisions of Section (9A) to 6 [2007] 294 ITR (AT) 15 (Chennai) 45 Section 80IA would override. Delhi High Court has accepted said interpretation and observed that two provisions are required to be read harmoniously, for Section 80-IA(9) should not be treated as redundant provision as it was introduced for purpose of achieving clear objective. Consequently, it has held that deduction under Section 80HHC cannot be computed without reference to bar under Section 80IA(9). 20. There is no doubt that Section 80AB and sub-section (9) to Section 80IA have to be harmoniously construed and read together. There cannot be any trace of doubt that second limb of Section 9 to Section 80IA has been enacted to prevent cascading effect of deductions under Section 80IA and 80HHC. There was already cap or upper limit stipulated in sub-section(2) to Section 80IA that deductions cannot exceed gross total income of assessee. However, Section 9 to Section 80IA stipulates that in no case deduction shall exceed profits and gains of such eligible business of 46 undertaking and enterprise. said provision does not make reference to gross total income but it refers to profits and gains of such eligible business of undertaking and enterprise. Thus read, it cannot be said that last part of sub-section (9) to section 80IA would be rendered meaningless being mere reproduction of sub-section(2) to Section 80A. two provisions operate independently. aforesaid aspect has been overlooked by Delhi High Court while emphasizing that word and is disjunctive. There cannot be any doubt that last part of Section 80IA(9) has its meaning and object, but it is not necessary to read same to curtail or reduce profit or gains of business by deduction allowed under Section 80IA. This aspect is highlighted in Associated Capsules Private Limited (supra) by High Court of Bombay in following paragraphs:- 23. As per section 80A(2) in Part of Chapter VI-A, aggregate amount of deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed gross total income. Thus, overall deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A cannot exceed gross total income. However, 47 on noticing that several undertakings were availing of deductions under Chapter VI-A within overall limit of gross total income but exceeding profits of undertaking, Legislature introduced sub-section (9A) in section 80-IA by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, with effect from April 1, 1999. By Finance Act, 1999, section 80-IA(9A) has been renumbered as section 80-IA(9). 24. object of amending section 80-IA by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, as is evident from memorandum explaining provisions in Finance (No.2) Bill, 1998([1998] 231 ITR (St.) 252) is that it was noticed that certain assessees were claiming more than 100 percent deduction on profits and gains of same undertaking, when they were entitled to deductions under more than one section under heading C of Chapter VI-A. With view to prevent taxpayer taking undue advantage of existing provisions of Act, section 80-IA was amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, so that deductions allowed under section 80-IA and various sections under heading C of Chapter VI-A are restricted to profits of business of undertakings/enterprise. 21. first part of sub-section (9) to Section 80IA refers to computation of profits and gains of undertaking or enterprise allowed under Section 80IA in any assessment year and amount so calculated shall not be allowed as deduction under any other provisions of this Chapter. It is in 48 this context that Bombay High Court has rightly pointed out that there is difference between allowing deduction and computation of deduction. two have separate and distinct meanings. Computation of deduction is stage prior and helps in quantifying amount, which is eligible for deduction. Sub-section (9) to Section 80IA does not bar or prohibit deduction allowed under Section 80IA from being included in gross total income, when deduction under Section 80HHC(3) of Act is computed. In this context it has been held that expression shall not be allowed cannot be equated with words shall not qualify or shall not be allowed in computing deduction. effect thereof would be that while computing deduction under Section 80HHC, gross total income would mean gross total income before allowing any deduction under Section 80IA or other sections of part C of Chapter VIA of Act. But once deduction under Section 80HHC has been calculated, it will be allowed, ensuring that deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IA 49 when aggregated do not exceed profits and gains of such eligible business of undertaking and enterprise. 22. As I find, legislature has used expression shall not qualify in Section 80HHB(5) and 80HHD(7), but said expression has not been used in sub-section (9) to Section 80IA. formula prescribed in sub-section (3) to Section 80HHC is complete code for purpose of said computation of eligible profits and gains of business from exports of mercantiles and goods. It has reference to total turnover, turnover from exports in proportion to profits and gains from business in clause (a) and so forth under clause (b) and (c) of Section 80HHC(3) of Act. In case gross total income is reduced or modified taking into account deduction allowed under Section 80IA, it would lead to absurd and unintended consequences. It would render formula under sub-section (3) to Section 80HHC ineffective and unworkable as highlighted in paragraph 33 of decision in Associated Capsules Private Limited (supra) with reference 50 to clause (b) of Section 80HHC(3). Even when I apply clause (a) and calculate eligible deduction under Section 80HHC, it would give odd and anomalous figure. To illustrate, I would like to expound on earlier example after recording that gross total income of Rs.1,000/- was on assumed total turnover of Rs.10,000/- which includes export turnover of Rs.5,000/- and deduction allowable under Section 80-IA was 30% and deduction allowable under Section 80HHC was 80% of eligible profits as computed under Section 80HHC(3). stand of Revenue is that without alteration or modification of figures of total turnover and export turnover, gross total income would undergo reduction from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 700/- as Rs. 300/- has been allowed as deduction under Section 80-IA. This would result in anomaly for said figure would not be actual and true figure or true gross total income or profit earned on total turnover including export turnover and, therefore, would give somewhat unusual and unacceptable result. There is 51 no logic or rationale for making calculation in said impracticable and unintelligible manner. 23. Recently, this Court in Jeyar Consultant and Investment Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras7, dealing with Assessment Year 1989-90, had examined sub-section (3)(b) to Section 80 HHC as it then existed on question of computation of deduction, which has reference to figures of profit from business, export turnover and total turnover. said clause applied to assessee who had turnover and income from business in India as well as from export business. eligible profits from exports under clause were computed as proportion which had reference to three figures. Reversing finding of High Court, it was observed that insofar export business was concerned, assessee therein had admittedly incurred loses and on said factual position there was no doubt or debate. However, assessee relying upon formula 7 (2015) 7 SCC 705 52 prescribed in clause (b) to Section 80HHC(3) had contended that profits of business as whole, i.e., profits earned from goods or merchandise within India, which outweighed loses from exports, should be taken into consideration. Referring to decisions in IPCA Laboratories Limited v. CIT8 and A.M. Moosa v. CIT9, contention was rejected observing that profits of business should be positive profits and not negative income or losses. It was observed that formula prescribed in sub-section (3) clause (b) would not come into picture, where it was accepted case of assessee that there were no profits from export business. Hence, when there were loses in export business, deduction under Section 80HHC would not be allowed. 24. issue raised in present case is entirely different. assessee has made profits which are eligible and on which deduction is to be allowed under Sections 80HHC and 80IA. 25. Two other aspects need to be noticed. In Jeyar 8 (2004) 12 SCC 742 9 (2007) 7 SCC 647 53 Consultant and Investment Private Limited (supra), Court was dealing with Assessment Year 1989-90 and sub-section (3) to Section 80HHC as it then existed and was applicable. said sub-section had underwent substitution by Finance (No.1) Act, 1990 with effect from 1 st April, 1991 and then again by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 st April 1992. first substitution may not be of material relevance for it was specified that profits derived from exports were to be worked out in same proportion with sale proceeds received in, or brought into India in convertible foreign exchange bear to total sale proceeds of such goods or merchandise. However, amendments made by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with effect from Assessment Year 1992-93 are substantial as new provisions provides detailed mechanism for computing profits from exports from trading goods and in case of mixed activity of manufacturing and trading. Sub-section(3) to Section 80HHC as enacted by Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 and further amendments has been 54 quoted in paragraph 15 above. 26. It may be noted that second, third and fourth provisos to Section 80HHC(3) were inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1 st April, 1998. fifth proviso was inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1 st April, 1992. Explanation to sub-section (3) would indicate that it defines different terms including direct and indirect cost , trading goods , adjusted export turnover and adjusted profits of business . 27. Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 with retrospective effect from 1 st April, 1987 in Explanation to Section 80HHC defines term total turnover and profits of business in clauses (ba) and (baa). They read as under:- (ba) total turnover , shall not include freight or insurance attributable to transport of goods or merchandise beyond customs station as defined in Customs Act, 1962 2 (52 of 1962): Provided that in relation to any assessment year commencing on or after 1st day of April, 1991, expression total turnover shall have effect as if it also excluded any 55 sum referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of Section 28; (baa) profits of business means profits of business as computed under head Profits and gains of business or profession as reduced by (1) ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of Section 28 or of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature included in such profits; and (2) profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of assesses situate outside India; [1 Inserted by Finance (No.2 Act, 1991, w.e.f 1-4-1987. 2 Inserted by Finance (No.2 Act, 1991, w.e.f 1-4-1992 ] 28. expression profits of business as defined in clause (baa) of Explanation to Section 80HHC of Act was interpreted by Court in ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai10, in following manner:- 11. Before we deal with contentions of learned counsel for parties, we may extract 10 (2012) 3 SCC 321 56 Explanation (baa) to Section 80-HHC of Act: Explanation. For purposes of this section, * * * (baa) profits of business means profits of business as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession as reduced by (1) ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clauses (iii-a), (iii-b), (iii-c), (iii-d) and (iii-e) of Section 28 or of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature included in such profits; and (2) profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of assessee situate outside India; 12. Explanation (baa) extracted above states that profits of business means profits of business as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession as reduced by receipts of nature mentioned in clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa). Thus, profits of business of assessee will have to be first computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession in accordance with provisions of Sections 28 to 44-D of Act. In computation of such profits of business, all receipts of income which are chargeable as profits and gains of business under Section 28 of Act will have to be included. Similarly, in computation of such profits of business, different expenses which are allowable under Sections 30 to 44-D have to be allowed as expenses. After including such receipts of income and after 57 deducting such expenses, total of net receipts are profits of business of assessee computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession from which deductions are to be made under clauses (1) and (2) of Explanation (baa). 29. Reliance was placed for said interpretation on decision of Constitution Bench in Distributors (Baroda) (P) Limited v. Union of India11, to observe:- 16. Similarly, Explanation (baa) has to be construed on its own language and as per plain natural meaning of words used in Explanation (baa), words receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature included in such profits will not only refer to nature of receipts but also quantum of receipts included in profits of business as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession referred to in first part of Explanation (baa). Accordingly, if any quantum of any receipt of nature mentioned in clause (1) of Explanation (baa) has not been included in profits of business of assessee as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession , ninety per cent of such quantum of receipt cannot be deducted under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. 17. If we now apply Explanation (baa) as 11 (1986) 1 SCC 43 58 interpreted by us in this judgment to facts of case before us, if rent or interest is receipt chargeable as profits and 1 gains of business and chargeable to tax under Section 28 of Act, and if any quantum of rent or interest of assesses is allowable as expense in accordance with Sections 30 to 44D of Act and is not to be included in profits of business of assessee as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession , ninety per cent of such quantum of receipt of rent or interest will not be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section 80 HHC. In other words, ninety per cent of not gross rent or gross interest but only net interest or net rent, which has been included in profits of business of assessee as computed under head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession , is to be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC for determining profits of business . 30. Referring to CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair12, it was observed that processing charges received by assessee were held to be business turnover and included in profits and gains of business. As per Explanation (baa) it was observed that 90% of this income would have to be deducted. However, in Ravindranathan Nair (supra) Court was not deciding whether 90% of deduction was to be made from gross or 12 (2007) 15 SCC 1 59 net income. 31. Earlier decision in Topman Exports v CIT13 holds that not entire amount on sale of DEPB, but sale value less face value will represent profit under Section 28(iii-d) and accordingly deduction under Section 80HHC should be computed. 32. second aspect to be noticed is that in Jeyar Consultant and Investment Private Limited (supra) reference was made to IPCA Laboratories Limited (supra) and A.M. Moosa (supra) and it was noticed that in said cases, Court was concerned with two business activities both of which related to exports, one from export of self manufactured/processed goods and other from trading in goods. In other words, Court was concerned only with income from exports and there was no domestic or in India turnover. 33. In view of aforesaid analysis, I am of considered 13 (2012) 3 SCC 593 60 opinion that interpretation placed by High Court of Bombay is correct and, accordingly, I dismiss appeals preferred by revenue and allow appeals preferred by assessees. There shall be no order as to costs. .........................................J. [DIPAK MISRA] NEW DELHI DECEMBER 10, 2015 61 REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7427 OF 2012 ASST.COMMR.OF I.T BANGALORE ... APPELLANT(S) VS. M/S MICRO LABS LTD. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NO.14295 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6445 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14297 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6829 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14298 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6926 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14299 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14300 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8603 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14301 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8879 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14302 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8923 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14303 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10243 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14304 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.13992 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14305 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.17319 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14306 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21221 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14307 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21222 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14308 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.21224 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14309 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.22128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14310 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.23918 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14311 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.24682 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14312 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25006 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14313 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25664 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14314 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25755 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14315 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25987 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14316 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.25988 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14317 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26002 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14318 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26025 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14319 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26246 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14320 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26250 OF 2011, 62 C.A. NO.14322 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26418 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14323 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.26818 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14324 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.27270 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14325 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.28128 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14326 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.29796 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14327 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31207 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14328 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.31208 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14329 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33936 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14330 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.33938 OF 2011, C.A. NO.14331 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.227 OF 2012, C.A.NOS.14332-14333 OF 2015 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.907-908 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14334 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.909 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14335 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.910 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14336 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.931 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14337 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2291 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14338 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.2292 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14339 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.5762 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14340 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6111 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14341 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.6677 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14342 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.8476 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14343 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.9472 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14344 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.12874 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14345 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.19923 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14346 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.34816 OF 2012, C.A. NO.14347 OF 2015 @ S.L.P. (C) NO.10591 OF 2013, C.A. NO.7847 OF 2012, C.A. NO.4544 OF 2013, C.A. NO.5341 OF 2013 AND C.A. NO.1890 OF 2015. J U D G M E N T In view of difference of opinion, matters are referred to larger Bench. Registry is directed to place matters before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, so 63 that same can be referred to appropriate Bench. ..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE] ..............J. [DIPAK MISRA] New Delhi; 10th December, 2015. 64 REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7427 OF 2012 ASST.COMMR.OF I.T BANGALORE ... APPELLANT(S) VS. M/S MICRO LABS LTD. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A.No.14295/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6445/2011 C.A.No.14297/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6829/2011 C.A.No.14298/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6926/2011 C.A.No.14299/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6938/2011 C.A.No.14300/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8603/2011 C.A.No.14301/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8879/2011 C.A.No.14302/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8923/2011 C.A.No.14303/2015 @ SLP(C)No.10243/2011 C.A.No.14304/2015 @ SLP(C)No.13992/2011 C.A.No.14305/2015 @ SLP(C)No.17319/2011 C.A.No.14306/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21221/2011 C.A.No.14307/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21222/2011 C.A.No.14308/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21224/2011 65 C.A.No.14309/2015 @ SLP(C)No.22128/2011 C.A.No.14310/2015 @ SLP(C)No.23918/2011 C.A.No.14311/2015 @ SLP(C)No.24682/2011 C.A.No.14312/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25006/2011 C.A.No.14313/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25664/2011 C.A.No.14314/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25755/2011 C.A.No.14315/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25987/2011 C.A.No.14316/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25988/2011 C.A.No.14317/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26002/2011 C.A.No.14318/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26025/2011 C.A.No.14319/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26246/2011 C.A.No.14320/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26250/2011 C.A.No.14322/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26418/2011 C.A.No.14323/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26818/2011 C.A.No.14324/2015 @ SLP(C)No.27270/2011 C.A.No.14325/2015 @ SLP(C)No.28128/2011 C.A.No.14326/2015 @ SLP(C)No.29796/2011 C.A.No.14327/2015 @ SLP(C)No.31207/2011 C.A.No.14328/2015 @ SLP(C)No.31208/2011 C.A.No.14329/2015 @ SLP(C)No.33936/2011 C.A.No.14330/2015 @ SLP(C)No.33938/2011 66 C.A.No.14331/2015 @ SLP(C)No.227/2012 C.A.No.14332-14333/2015 @ SLP(C)Nos.907-908/2012 C.A.No.14334/2015 @ SLP(C)No.909/2012 C.A.No.14335/2015 @ SLP(C)No.910/2012 C.A.No.14336/2015 @ SLP(C)No.931/2012 C.A.No.14337/2015 @ SLP(C)No.2291/2012 C.A.No.14338/2015 @ SLP(C)No.2292/2012 C.A.No.14339/2015 @ SLP(C)No.5762/2012 C.A.No.14340/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6111/2012 C.A.No.14341/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6677/2012 C.A.No.14342/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8476/2012 C.A.No.14343/2015 @ SLP(C)No.9472/2012 C.A.No.14344/2015 @ SLP(C)No.12874/2012 C.A.No.14345/2015 @ SLP(C)No.19923/2012 C.A.No.14346/2015 @ SLP(C)No.34816/2012 C.A.No.14347/2015 @ SLP(C)No.10591/2013 C.A.No.7847/2012 C.A.No.4544/2013 C.A.No.5341/2013 C.A.No.1890/2015 J U D G M E N T 67 In view of difference of opinion, matters are referred to larger Bench. Registry is directed to place matters before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, so that same can be referred to appropriate Bench. ..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE] ..............J. [DIPAK MISRA] New Delhi; 10th December, 2015. 68 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).7427/2012 ASST.COMMR.OF I.T BANGALORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S MICRO LABS LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A.No.14295/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6445/2011 C.A.No.14297/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6829/2011 C.A.No.14298/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6926/2011 C.A.No.14299/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6938/2011 C.A.No.14300/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8603/2011 C.A.No.14301/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8879/2011 C.A.No.14302/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8923/2011 C.A.No.14303/2015 @ SLP(C)No.10243/2011 C.A.No.14304/2015 @ SLP(C)No.13992/2011 C.A.No.14305/2015 @ SLP(C)No.17319/2011 C.A.No.14306/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21221/2011 C.A.No.14307/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21222/2011 C.A.No.14308/2015 @ SLP(C)No.21224/2011 69 C.A.No.14309/2015 @ SLP(C)No.22128/2011 C.A.No.14310/2015 @ SLP(C)No.23918/2011 C.A.No.14311/2015 @ SLP(C)No.24682/2011 C.A.No.14312/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25006/2011 C.A.No.14313/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25664/2011 C.A.No.14314/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25755/2011 C.A.No.14315/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25987/2011 C.A.No.14316/2015 @ SLP(C)No.25988/2011 C.A.No.14317/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26002/2011 C.A.No.14318/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26025/2011 C.A.No.14319/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26246/2011 C.A.No.14320/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26250/2011 C.A.No.14322/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26418/2011 C.A.No.14323/2015 @ SLP(C)No.26818/2011 C.A.No.14324/2015 @ SLP(C)No.27270/2011 C.A.No.14325/2015 @ SLP(C)No.28128/2011 C.A.No.14326/2015 @ SLP(C)No.29796/2011 C.A.No.14327/2015 @ SLP(C)No.31207/2011 C.A.No.14328/2015 @ SLP(C)No.31208/2011 C.A.No.14329/2015 @ SLP(C)No.33936/2011 C.A.No.14330/2015 @ SLP(C)No.33938/2011 70 C.A.No.14331/2015 @ SLP(C)No.227/2012 C.A.No.14332-14333/2015 @ SLP(C)Nos.907-908/2012 C.A.No.14334/2015 @ SLP(C)No.909/2012 C.A.No.14335/2015 @ SLP(C)No.910/2012 C.A.No.14336/2015 @ SLP(C)No.931/2012 C.A.No.14337/2015 @ SLP(C)No.2291/2012 C.A.No.14338/2015 @ SLP(C)No.2292/2012 C.A.No.14339/2015 @ SLP(C)No.5762/2012 C.A.No.14340/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6111/2012 C.A.No.14341/2015 @ SLP(C)No.6677/2012 C.A.No.14342/2015 @ SLP(C)No.8476/2012 C.A.No.14343/2015 @ SLP(C)No.9472/2012 C.A.No.14344/2015 @ SLP(C)No.12874/2012 C.A.No.14345/2015 @ SLP(C)No.19923/2012 C.A.No.14346/2015 @ SLP(C)No.34816/2012 C.A.No.14347/2015 @ SLP(C)No.10591/2013 C.A.No.7847/2012 C.A.No.4544/2013 C.A.No.5341/2013 C.A.No.1890/2015 Date : 10/12/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. 71 For Appellant(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Dr. Rakesh Gupta,Adv. Ms. Poonam Ahuja,Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta,Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal,Adv. Mr. Nikunj Dayal,Adv. Ms. Payal Dayal,Adv. Mr. B.V. Desai,Adv. Ms. Saumya Mehrotra,Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. Mr. Balraj Dewan,Adv. Mr. Rajinder Mathur,Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. Ms. Namita Choudhary,Adv. Mr. S.K. Sabharwal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Mohan,Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,Adv. Mr. Rustom B. Hathikhanawala,Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu,Adv. Mr. Prabhat K.C.,Adv. M/s. Temple Law Firm,Advs. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala,Adv. 72 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced judgment. Leave granted in special leave petitions and appeals are allowed in favour of Revenue with no order as to costs in terms of signed Reportable judgment. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra pronounced separate judgment. While granting leave in special leave petitions, appeals preferred by revenue are dismissed and appeals preferred by assesses are allowed in terms of signed Reportable Judgment. In view of difference of opinion, matters are referred to larger Bench in terms of signed reportable judgment. Registry to place matters before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Three signed Reportable Judgments are placed on file) Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore v. M/s. Micro Labs Ltd