Mahavir International (P) Ltd, V. DCIT Circle-6 (1),

ITA 1617/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3744 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND SENIOR
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S. MAHAVIR INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, CI RCLE 6, D 4/4, MODEL TOWN III, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 009. (PAN : AADCM2038E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)- IX, NEW DELHI DATED 14.1.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS (IX) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF LD. DCIT FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AFTER GI VING RELIEF U/S 80IB FROM PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS R ESULTING INTO LOWER DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC BY RS.12,23,723/-. THAT BOTH THE LD. A.O. AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSTRUED THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ENACTMENT AND BY TAKING A NARROW VIEW OF THE STATUT E, HAS DENIED JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 2 THAT IN VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CASE ADDITIO N OF RS.12,23,723 BY EXCLUDING RELIEF U/S 80IB FROM PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS FOR COMPUTING RELIEF U/S 80HHC, I S BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND AND SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS AND A DD ANY FURTHER GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 2.12.2003 DECLARING THE INCOME AT RS.19,94,134/-. THIS RETURN WAS PROC ESSED ON 5.3.2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN ORDER U/S 154 WAS PASSED ON 20.9.2 004 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.32,17,856/-. IN THE ORDER U/S 1 54, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AMOUNTING TO RS.4 0,79,073/- WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF BUSINESS PROFITS TAKEN AT RS.81,58,146/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION FORS.24,47,443/- ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME BUSINESS PROFITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS BEFO RE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THEREFORE, HE RECOMPUTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC BY REDUCING THE SAME TO RS.28,55,351/-. 3. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNE D DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIA L BENCH OF ITAT DELHI ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 3 BENCH C IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HINDUSTAN MINT & AGRO PRODUCTS (P.) LIMITED, 119 ITD 107 (DELHI)(SB) WHERE THE ITAT HEL D AS UNDER : IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE FIRST QUESTIO N TO BE DECIDED WAS AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SCM CREATIONS (SUPRA) HAS IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED THE SPECI AL BENCHS DECISION OF ROGINI GARMENTS' CASE (SUPRA), NOTWITHS TANDING PROVISION OF SECTION 80-IA(9). PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF SCM CREATIONS (SUPRA) SH OWED THAT APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80-IA(9) OR SIMILAR PROVIS ION UNDER SECTION 80-IB WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE. THOUGH THE CASE PERTAINED TO AN ASSESSMENT YE AR AFTER 1-4- 1999, YET THE PRE-AMENDED LAW WAS APPLIED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT DECIS ION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN SCM CREATIONS (SUPRA) IS AN AU THORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION AS TO HOW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IA(9) MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999- 2000 ARE TO BE APPLIED. EFFECT AND IMPLEMENTATION O F ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE NEITHER RAISED, NOR EXAMINED NOR DE CIDED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. IN THE LATER DECISION OF THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL OPTICS (ASIA) LTD. V. DCIT(A) DECIDED ON 27-12-2008 WHEREIN SIMILAR QUESTION WAS RAISED, THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECI AL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA), HAD ALLOWED DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC AFTER DEDUCTING RELIEF ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA(9). IT IS CLEAR FROM ABOVE THAT APPLICATION OF RESTRICT IONS AS UPHELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA) WAS HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ONWARDS. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT WAS T O BE HELD THAT DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SC M CREATIONS (SUPRA) DID NOT IMPINGE UPON THE RATIO OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA). IT WA S, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAVE TAKEN A VIEW CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF ROGINI GARMENT S' CASE (SUPRA) DID NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATE THE LEGAL POSI TION. ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 4 ON CONSIDERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IA(9), IT IS FOUND THAT THERE ARE TWO RESTRICTIONS IN THE STATUTORY PR OVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE :- (A) WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER TH IS SECTION (I.E., 80-IA OR 80-IB), DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH PROFIT AND GAIN SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER (HEADING 'C - DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES), AND (B) DEDUCTION SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THE PROFIT A ND GAIN OF THE UNDERTAKING OR HOTEL, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT TOTAL DEDUC TIONS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS SHOULD NOT EXCEED PROFITS AND GAIN S OF AN UNDERTAKING. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THIS CON TENTION. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 772, DATED 23-12-19 98 CLARIFIED AND ONLY DEALT WITH (B) ABOVE AND DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO MAKE REFERENCE TO RESTRICTION (A). IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, ONE HAS TO EXCLUDE PORTION OF THE PROVISION COVERED BY (A) AND IGNORE THE RESTRICTION PLACED THEREIN. WHY SUCH COURSE SHOULD BE ADOPTED WHEN WO RDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE, 'CLAIMED AND ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF SUC H PROFITS AND GAINS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISIO NS, ARE QUITE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND ARE TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE. THE PROFITS OR GAINS OF A N INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED AS A DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA, SUCH PROFIT (TO THE EXTENT) CA NNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER 'C. IF PROFIT, WHICH HA S ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION, IS AGAIN TAKEN INTO CONSIDE RATION FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION REFER RED TO ABOVE, THEN RESTRICTION (A) ABOVE IS DISREGARDED AN D IGNORED. IT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE LANGUA GE OF THE PROVISION. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADOPTING A COURSE PROHIBITED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE T O' IGNORE THE RESTRICTION PLACED AS (A) NOR IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACC EPT THAT IN CIRCULAR NO. 772, THERE IS A SUGGESTION TO IGNORE R ESTRICTION (A) MENTIONED ABOVE. AS PER THE SETTLED LAW, THE COURTS AND THE TRIBUNALS MUST SEE THE MANDATE OF THE LEGISLATURE A ND GIVE EFFECT TO IT, AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE REVENUE. TH EREFORE, RESTRICTION (A) ABOVE HAS TO BE RESPECTED AND FOLLO WED. ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 5 THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF SECTION 80AB, NO DOUBT, PROVIDES THAT DEDUCTION UNDER EACH SECTION OF CHAPTER VI-A I S TO BE COMPUTED INDEPENDENTLY. BUT, NOT ONLY THE TOTAL SCH EME OF THE STATUTE BUT SCHEME OF EVERY SECTION IS TO BE READ A ND INTERPRET AND EVERY WORD IS TO BE GIVEN PROPER MEANING. IN SE VERAL SECTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IT IS PROVIDED THAT IF DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED UNDER THAT SECTION, THEN NO DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A WOULD BE ALLOWED. THUS, WHERE DEDUCTION UNDER SUCH SPECIFIC SECTION HAS BEEN CLAI MED AND ALLOWED, THERE IS NO NEED TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION PERM ISSIBLE UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A. IT WOULD BE A FUTILE AND USELESS EXERCISE. THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF COMPUTI NG DEDUCTION IN ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ARISE AND SE CTION 80AB WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. THE SAID SECTION PR OVIDES NO SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM WHERE DEDUCTION IS TO BE CO MPUTED UNDER MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF CHAPTER VIA. IT CANN OT FOLLOW THAT OTHER SECTIONS PROVIDING MODIFICATION OR CHANG E IN MANNER OR MODE OF COMPUTATION ARE TO BE IGNORED. THERE ARE SEVERAL SECTIONS LIKE SECTIONS 80HHA, 80HHA(5), 80HHA(6) PR OVIDING MANNER OF DEDUCTIONS OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO O NE DEDUCTION OVER ANOTHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION UNDER MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF CHAPTER VI-A. IT IS PROVID ED THAT EFFECT SHALL FIRST BE GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR SECTION . ALL THE SECTIONS ARE TO BE READ TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY. THE FACT THAT SECTION 80AB STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE DOES NOT MAK E ANY DIFFERENCE, AS THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN VARIOUS PROV ISIONS RESTRICTION PLACED ON DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF SAME ELIG IBLE PROFIT CANNOT BE READ AS AN ABSURDITY OR CONFLICT. HAVING REGARD TO ABOVE PROVISIONS, PUTTING BAN ON ALLOWABILITY OF DE DUCTION UNDER OTHER SECTIONS, COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDE R THOSE SECTIONS WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE. IT CANNOT FOLLOW F ROM ABOVE THAT RESTRICTION 0 THOSE SECTIONS ARE NOT TO BE GIV EN EFFECT TO AS SCHEME IN THOSE SECTIONS IS DIFFERENT FROM SCHEME O F SECTION 80AB WHICH STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE 'NOTWI THSTANDING ANYTHING. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IF ACCEPT ED, WOULD LEAD TO COMPLICATIONS NOT ENVISAGED BY THE LEGISLAT URE. THEREFORE, IN A CASE WHERE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THEN IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SU B-SECTION (9), SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS (TO THE EXTENT) SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE RELEVANT CHAPTER. FOR EX AMPLE, IF TOTAL PROFIT OF UNDERTAKING IS RS.100 AND 20 PER CE NT IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR 80-IE, THEN F OR PURPOSES OF OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE SECTION 80HHC, ON SUCH 20 PER CENT OF ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 6 PROFIT, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED. THE DEDUCTION UNDER OTHER SECTIONS HAS TO BE COMPUTE AFTER REDUCING SUCH PROF IT OF 20 PER CENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WILL BE COMPUTED WITH REFE RENCE TO 80 PER CENT OF THE PROFIT. SUCH DEDUCTION CANNOT BE GO VERNED BY SECTION 80AB ALONE, AS IT IS A CASE IN WHICH DEDUCT IONS UNDER MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF CHAPTER VI-A ARE TO BE ALL OWED; ADJUSTMENT OF DEDUCTIONS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS TO BE MADE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE PROVISION BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA IS APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, PROVISI ON OF SECTION 80AB IS OF NO ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING THE P ROBLEM IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHERE THE LEGIS LATURE INTENDED TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION OUT OF S OME OTHER DEDUCTION, A DIFFERENT PHRASEOLOGY WAS USED. BY REF ERRING TO SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80HHB; SUB-SECTION (4) O F SECTION 80HHB; AND SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IE, THE AS SESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE PROVISIONS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFICALLY USED NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHEREAS N O OVERRIDING EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SECTION 80-IA OR 80-IB. TH E DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGISLATUR E DID NOT INTEND THAT DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER ABOVE PROVISION S SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM RELIEF PERMITTED BY OTHER SECTIONS. THERE WAS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT LEGISLATURE ADOPTS DIFFERENT WAYS AND MEAN S IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ITS GOAL AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INSISTENCE ON IDENTICAL LANGUAGE. WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, WHICH, IF CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 80HHC WA S A SPECIAL PROVISION PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE TO EXPORTERS EARNI NG PRECIOUS FOREIGN EXCHANGE FOR THE COUNTRY WHEREAS SECTION 80 -IA OR 80- IE COVERS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FIELD. THEREFORE, REA DING OF PROVISION OF SECTION 80-IA(9) IN SECTION 80HHC WOUL D ONLY LEAD TO AN APPARENT CONFLICT. THERE WAS NO FORCE IN ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. OF COURSE ALL THE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER AND GIVEN A HARM ONIOUS CONSTRUCTION. ALL PROVISIONS ARE INTER-RELATED AND CANNOT BE READ ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 7 DE HORS, ONE AND OTHER. THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE RESTRICTION IMPO SED BY SUB- SECTION (9) ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 80-IA IS TO BE RE AD IN ALL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE T O IGNORE THE RESTRICTION THAT PROFIT AND GAINS CLAIMED AND ALLOW ED AS EXEMPT UNDER SUB-SECTION (9), (TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED) CANN OT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF CHAPTER C. ABOVE CO NSTRUCTION IN READING RESTRICTION IN ALL RELEVANT PROVISIONS U NDER CHAPTER C, IS LEADING TO NO CONTRADICTION OR ABSURDITY AN D IS REASONABLE. IT IS THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY NOT TO AL LOW REPEATED DEDUCTION OF SAME PROFIT UNDER SECTIONS OF DEDUCTIO NS IN CHAPTER VI-A. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT OR C ONTRADICTION IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE. DOING OTHERWISE WOULD, NO DOUBT, BE DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CLEAR LAN GUAGE. THE ARGUMENT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, TO BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO LAID STRESS TO NOTES OF OBJECTS A ND REASONS PERTAINING TO INTRODUCTION OF SUB-SECTIONS (9) AND (13) IN SECTIONS 80-IA AND 80-IE. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT NO. 772, DATED 23-12-1998 TO EMPHASISE THAT THE LEGISLATURE ONLY INTENDED TO LIMIT DEDUCTION UNDER ALL THE PROVISIONS TO 100 PER CENT OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT. IT W AS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE RESTRICTION OR DEDUCT PROFIT ALLOWED UNDE R SECTION 80- IA / 80-IB FROM DEDUCTION PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 80HHC. THE NOTES ON OBJECTS AND ACCOMPANYING REASONS ARE O NLY AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION. SUCH AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION ARE NEEDED WHEN LITERAL READING OF PROVISION LEADS TO AMBIGUOUS RESULTS OR ABSURDITY. WHERE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY O R ABSURDITY, NOTES ON CLAUSES NEED NOT BE REFERRED TO. THEREFORE , ON FACTS, THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM NOTES ON CLAUSES OF THE FINANCE ACT. AS REGARDS CIRCULAR NO. 772, DATED 23-12- 199S, AS ALREADY HELD THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS DE EDING WITH RESTRICTION (B) WHICH PROVIDED THAT DEDUCTION (UNDE R OTHER PROVISION WITH HEADING 'C), 'SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEE D PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR HOTEL, AS THE CASE MAY BE: THE ABOVE PORTION OF THE SECTION IS SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER PORTION OF THE SUB-SECTION BY WORD AND'. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR T HAT THERE ARE TWO RESTRICTIONS IN THE SUB-SECTION AND CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD IS DEALING ONLY WITH THE SECOND RESTRICTION. IT IS DIF FICULT TO ACCEPT THAT CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED TO DO AWAY WITH FIRST REST RICTION INCORPORATED IN THE PROVISIONS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ALLOWING REPEATED DEDUCTIONS ON P ROFIT AND GAIN ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 8 ON WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 8 0-IA OR 80-IB OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 80-IA(9) / 80-IB(9A) I S CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. DEDUCTION OF PROFITS AND GAINS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA / 80- IB IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AGAIN UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION. THERE- IS THEN FURTHER RESTRICTION ON TOTAL DEDUCTION NOT EXCEEDIN G ELIGIBLE PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING. FURTHER RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IA OR 8 0-IB NOT TO ALLOW REPEATED DEDUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO SAME PR OFIT. THIS IS MORE THAN CLEAR FROM USE OF WORDS 'SUCH PROFIT' IN SECTION 80-IA / 80-IB. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS TO BE IDENTITY O F PROFITS ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER MORE THAN ONE PROVISION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE ON THE PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRIS E, DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR 80-IB AND THEN ON THE SAME PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING, DEDUCTION UNDER OTHER PR OVISIONS LIKE 80HHC IS CLAIMED. IN SUCH CASES, RESTRICTION CONTAI NED IN ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY. IF PROFITS ARE DERIVED FROM SEPARATE UNDERTAKINGS, RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN ABOVE PROVIS ION WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SECTION 80-IA(9 ) CANNOT CONTROL THE MECHANISM OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80HHC(3). IT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE I T WAS FOUND THAT PROVISION ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ASSUMPTION APP LICABLE, THEN THOSE PROVISIONS ARE TO BE IN INTERPRETED LIBE RALLY. SAID CONTENTION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS ALL STATUT ORY PROVISIONS ARE IN INTER-RELATED AND ARE PARTS OF ONE SCHEME. T HIS CANNOT BE READ DE HORS ONE AND OTHER. RESTRICTION IMPOSED IN SECTION 80- IB(9) /80-IB(9A) IS TO BE READ IN ALL SECTIONS AND GIVEN EFFECT TO. THIS WOULD ONLY GIVE A HARMONIOUS READING. THUS, DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVI SION OF CHAPTER VI-A WITH THE HEADING 'C, (WHICH INCLUDES SECTIONS 80H, 80HHC, ETC.) IS TO BE REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA / 80-IB. ITA NO.1617/DEL/2008 9 4. AFTER HEARING THE REVENUE AND GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH CITED SUPRA AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 15 TH JUNE, 2010/TS COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-IX, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT. ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI.