My eligible unit made a profit but brought-forward losses of my other division wipe out my income. Can I still claim the Chapter VI-A deduction on the profitable unit?
No. The Supreme Court held that gross total income must first be worked out under the Act, after intra-head and inter-head set off and after setting off brought-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Chapter VI-A deductions come out of that figure. If it is nil or a loss, section 80A(2) leaves nothing for the deduction to be given from, and none can be allowed. The non obstante clause in section 80-I(6), which treats the eligible undertaking as the only source of income, fixes the quantum of the deduction only; it does not decide eligibility.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Ashok Bhan and J.M. Panchal JJ; judgment by Panchal J) on 2008-03-13, reported as 2008 AIR SCW 2321; 2008 (4) SCC 22; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1738; 2008 Tax LR 321; (2008) 4 SCALE 263; (2008) 299 ITR 444. It bears on section 80A(2), section 80B(5), section 80-I(6), section 80HH, section 72 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances matters.
This is the case that settles the sequence, and the sequence is what most Chapter VI-A disputes turn on. It separates two things that assessees routinely run together: computing how much the deduction is, which is done unit-wise under section 80-I(6) and ignores losses of other units, and finding the pot the deduction is taken out of, which is gross total income for the assessee as a whole under sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). The Court holds those provisions declaratory and applicable to every section in the Chapter, so the answer is not confined to section 80-I. It also records that the predominant view of the High Courts was already this way, and follows it, which makes contrary High Court authority unusable.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee was a company in the oil and chemicals business, with an oil division in Sirohi district, Rajasthan and a chemical division at Jodhpur. It earned profits in both units in assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, but the oil division had suffered losses in earlier years. It claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I on the footing that each unit must be treated separately, so that the oil division's earlier losses could not be adjusted against the chemical division's profits when deciding whether the deductions were allowable. The Assessing Officer found that gross total income before Chapter VI-A deductions was nil after the earlier losses were set off, and refused the deductions. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that. The Tribunal held that gross total income had to be computed under the Act before any Chapter VI-A deduction, and being nil, no deduction under section 80HH or 80-I could be given, and dismissed the appeals. The Bombay High Court dismissed the assessee's appeals under section 260A by judgments of 23 July 2001. Two sets of appeals came to the Supreme Court and were decided together.
The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Gross total income must be determined by setting off the business losses of earlier years against income before any Chapter VI-A deduction is allowed, and if the resultant figure is nil the assessee cannot claim a deduction under that Chapter. The High Court was right that the oil division's loss had to be adjusted before determining gross total income, and that a nil gross total income left nothing from which the section 80-I deduction could be given. The Court also held that section 80-I(6) does not help the assessee on eligibility: its non obstante clause governs the quantum of the deduction only, while sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) are declaratory, apply to all sections in Chapter VI-A, and impose a ceiling. The proposition stated by the Court is that gross total income has first to be determined after adjusting losses, and if it is nil the assessee is not entitled to any Chapter VI-A deduction.
Section 80A(1) allows the Chapter's deductions from gross total income, and section 80A(2) says their aggregate shall not in any case exceed gross total income. Section 80B(5) defines gross total income as total income computed in accordance with the Act before any Chapter VI-A deduction. Reading those together, the Court set out how gross total income is arrived at: deductions under the appropriate computation provisions, inclusion of income under sections 60 to 64, adjustment of intra-head and inter-head losses, and set off of brought forward unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation. It follows that a Chapter VI-A deduction can only be given where that figure is positive; a nil or negative figure leaves nothing to deduct from, and to allow a deduction would produce a negative total income, which section 80A(2) forbids. The Court applied CIT v Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory (1997) 224 ITR 604, where carried-forward losses had to be set off before section 80P relief, and IPCA Laboratory Ltd v DCIT (2004) 12 SCC 742, where profit and loss on the two kinds of export had to be netted before section 80HHC. It then surveyed a long line of High Court decisions to the same effect and observed that where a predominant majority of the High Courts has taken a view on the interpretation of a provision, the Supreme Court leans in favour of it. On section 80-I(6), the Court distinguished computation from entitlement: sub-section (1) requires that gross total income include profits of the eligible undertaking and then gives twenty per cent of those profits, while sub-section (6) only says how those profits are worked out. Reading sub-section (6) as controlling eligibility would render section 80A(2) nugatory.
the gross total income of the assessee has first got to be determined after adjusting losses etc., and if the gross total income of the assessee is 'Nil' the assessee would not be entitled to deductions under Chapter VI-A.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that gross total income must first be worked out under the Act, after intra-head and inter-head set off and after setting off brought-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Chapter VI-A deductions come out of that figure. If it is nil or a loss, section 80A(2) leaves nothing for the deduction to be given from, and none can be allowed. The non obstante clause in section 80-I(6), which treats the eligible undertaking as the only source of income, fixes the quantum of the deduction only; it does not decide eligibility. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Ashok Bhan and J.M. Panchal JJ; judgment by Panchal J) and bears on section 80A(2), section 80B(5), section 80-I(6), section 80HH, section 72 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 2008 AIR SCW 2321; 2008 (4) SCC 22; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1738; 2008 Tax LR 321; (2008) 4 SCALE 263; (2008) 299 ITR 444. This is the case that settles the sequence, and the sequence is what most Chapter VI-A disputes turn on. It separates two things that assessees routinely run together: computing how much the deduction is, which is done unit-wise under section 80-I(6) and ignores losses of other units, and finding the pot the deduction is taken out of, which is gross total income for the assessee as a whole under sections 80A(2) and 80B(5). The Court holds those provisions declaratory and applicable to every section in the Chapter, so the answer is not confined to section 80-I. It also records that the predominant view of the High Courts was already this way, and follows it, which makes contrary High Court authority unusable. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Compute in the statutory order and show it in the return: heads of income, set off under sections 70 and 71, brought-forward loss under section 72 and unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2), then gross total income, and only then Chapter VI-A.
The assessee was a company in the oil and chemicals business, with an oil division in Sirohi district, Rajasthan and a chemical division at Jodhpur. It earned profits in both units in assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, but the oil division had suffered losses in earlier years. It claimed deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I on the footing that each unit must be treated separately, so that the oil division's earlier losses could not be adjusted against the chemical division's profits when deciding whether the deductions were allowable. The Assessing Officer found that gross total income before Chapter VI-A deductions was nil after the earlier losses were set off, and refused the deductions. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that. The Tribunal held that gross total income had to be computed under the Act before any Chapter VI-A deduction, and being nil, no deduction under section 80HH or 80-I could be given, and dismissed the appeals. The Bombay High Court dismissed the assessee's appeals under section 260A by judgments of 23 July 2001. Two sets of appeals came to the Supreme Court and were decided together. The matter was decided on 2008-03-13 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Ashok Bhan and J.M. Panchal JJ; judgment by Panchal J). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Gross total income must be determined by setting off the business losses of earlier years against income before any Chapter VI-A deduction is allowed, and if the resultant figure is nil the assessee cannot claim a deduction under that Chapter. The High Court was right that the oil division's loss had to be adjusted before determining gross total income, and that a nil gross total income left nothing from which the section 80-I deduction could be given. The Court also held that section 80-I(6) does not help the assessee on eligibility: its non obstante clause governs the quantum of the deduction only, while sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) are declaratory, apply to all sections in Chapter VI-A, and impose a ceiling. The proposition stated by the Court is that gross total income has first to be determined after adjusting losses, and if it is nil the assessee is not entitled to any Chapter VI-A deduction.
Section 80A(1) allows the Chapter's deductions from gross total income, and section 80A(2) says their aggregate shall not in any case exceed gross total income. Section 80B(5) defines gross total income as total income computed in accordance with the Act before any Chapter VI-A deduction. Reading those together, the Court set out how gross total income is arrived at: deductions under the appropriate computation provisions, inclusion of income under sections 60 to 64, adjustment of intra-head and inter-head losses, and set off of brought forward unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation. It follows that a Chapter VI-A deduction can only be given where that figure is positive; a nil or negative figure leaves nothing to deduct from, and to allow a deduction would produce a negative total income, which section 80A(2) forbids. The Court applied CIT v Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory (1997) 224 ITR 604, where carried-forward losses had to be set off before section 80P relief, and IPCA Laboratory Ltd v DCIT (2004) 12 SCC 742, where profit and loss on the two kinds of export had to be netted before section 80HHC. It then surveyed a long line of High Court decisions to the same effect and observed that where a predominant majority of the High Courts has taken a view on the interpretation of a provision, the Supreme Court leans in favour of it. On section 80-I(6), the Court distinguished computation from entitlement: sub-section (1) requires that gross total income include profits of the eligible undertaking and then gives twenty per cent of those profits, while sub-section (6) only says how those profits are worked out. Reading sub-section (6) as controlling eligibility would render section 80A(2) nugatory. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the gross total income of the assessee has first got to be determined after adjusting losses etc., and if the gross total income of the assessee is 'Nil' the assessee would not be entitled to deductions under Chapter VI-A."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2008-03-13 and is reported as 2008 AIR SCW 2321; 2008 (4) SCC 22; AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1738; 2008 Tax LR 321; (2008) 4 SCALE 263; (2008) 299 ITR 444. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 80A(2), section 80B(5), section 80-I(6), section 80HH, section 72, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Gross total income must be determined by setting off the business losses of earlier years against income before any Chapter VI-A deduction is allowed, and if the resultant figure is nil the assessee cannot claim a deduction under that Chapter. The High Court was right that the oil division's loss had to be adjusted before determining gross total income, and that a nil gross total income left nothing from which the section 80-I deduction could be given. The Court also held that section 80-I(6) does not help the assessee on eligibility: its non obstante clause governs the quantum of the deduction only, while sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) are declaratory, apply to all sections in Chapter VI-A, and impose a ceiling. The proposition stated by the Court is that gross total income has first to be determined after adjusting losses, and if it is nil the assessee is not entitled to any Chapter VI-A deduction. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 80A(2), section 80B(5), section 80-I(6), section 80HH, section 72 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - Ashok Bhan and J.M. Panchal JJ; judgment by Panchal J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not argue that each unit stands alone for eligibility; confine the unit-wise argument to the quantum computation under the relevant sub-section, where it is correct. Check that the aggregate of all Chapter VI-A deductions claimed does not exceed gross total income, since section 80A(2) caps them and the excess simply lapses for that year. Where the deduction is lost only because of set off, look separately at whether the losses were correctly brought forward and set off at all, as that is the live ground.
Still good law. Nothing in the judgment or in its own reasoning has been shown to me as disturbed, and the holding rests on the plain terms of sections 80A(2) and 80B(5), which the Court treats as declaratory and applicable throughout Chapter VI-A. I have not checked later Supreme Court treatment. Two things a reader must check for themselves: the current text of section 80A, which has had sub-sections added since, and the sub-section in the modern deduction provisions corresponding to section 80-I(6), because the quantum rule now sits in section 80-IA(5) and its scope has been litigated separately. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The batch line listed sections 80-IA and 80-IB, but the judgment is about sections 80HH and 80-I for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92; the sections field records what the judgment actually turns on. The judgment does not give the figures of the losses or the profits of either division, so this record cannot state them. The Court did not decide how section 80-I(6) works where gross total income is positive but one eligible unit is in loss, beyond saying that sub-section (6) treats the eligible undertaking as the only source for quantum. I have not read the Bombay High Court judgment under appeal. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. Gross total income must be determined by setting off the business losses of earlier years against income before any Chapter VI-A deduction is allowed, and if the resultant figure is nil the assessee cannot claim a deduction under that Chapter. The High Court was right that the oil division's loss had to be adjusted before determining gross total income, and that a nil gross total income left nothing from which the section 80-I deduction could be given. The Court also held that section 80-I(6) does not help the assessee on eligibility: its non obstante clause governs the quantum of the deduction only, while sections 80A(2) and 80B(5) are declaratory, apply to all sections in Chapter VI-A, and impose a ceiling. The proposition stated by the Court is that gross total income has first to be determined after adjusting losses, and if it is nil the assessee is not entitled to any Chapter VI-A deduction.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Must my 10A unit's profits be reduced by other units' losses before the deduction?
A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?
Same point, in Delhi: if the recorded grounds fail, can the officer still tax an unrelated item?