Bloom Dekor Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT(OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 362/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9147 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB; 80IA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' [BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR VICE-PRESIDENT] [AND SHRI P K BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.362/AHD/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED, 1 ST FLOOR, DHANLAXMI CHAMBERS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD V/S THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] PAN NO.: AAACB 6221 B APPELLANT BY :- SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN RESPONDENT BY:- SMT. NEETA SHAH, SR. DR O R D E R PER P K BANSAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2005. 2 THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHE R THE AO WAS WRONG IN REDUCING THE GROSS BUSINESS INCOME FIRST BY THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80-IA AND 80-IB AND GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ONLY ON THE BALANCE BUSINESS INCOME. AFT ER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH I N THE CASE OF 2 ACIT V HINDUSTAN MINTS & AGRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. [20 09] 119 ITD 107 (DELHI) (SB) , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE FIRST QUESTION TO BE DECIDED WAS AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SCM CREAT IONS (SUPRA) HAS IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED THE SPECIAL BENCH S DECISION O F ROGINI GARMENTS CASE (SUPRA), NOTWITHSTANDING PROVISION O F 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- 18 WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE. THOUGH THE CASE PERTAINED TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR 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 AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION AS TO HOW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-!A(9 ) MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ARE TO BE APPLIED. EFFECT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE NEITHER RAISED, NOR EXAMINED NOR DECIDED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. IN THE LATER DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GE NERAL OPTICS (ASIA) LTD. V. DCIT(A) DECIDED ON 2 7-12-2008 WHERE IN SIMILAR QUESTION WAS RAISED, THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (SUPRA ), HAD ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHC AFTER DEDUCTING RELIE F ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA(9). [PARA 20.1] 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 ONWAR DS. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT WAS TO BE HELD THAT DECISIO N OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCM CREATIONS (SUPRA) DID NOT IMPINGE UPON THE RATIO OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GA RMENTS (SUPRA). IT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT THE BENCHES OF THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH HAVE TAKEN A VIEW CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF ROGINI GARMENT S CASE (SUPRA) DID NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATE THE LEGAL POSITION. ON CONSIDERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-IA (9) , IT IS FOUND THAT THERE ARE TWO RESTRICTIONS IN THE STATUTORY PROVISI ON UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE 3 (A) WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER TH IS SECTION (I.E., 80- IA OR 80-IB), DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH PROFI T AND GAIN SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTE R (HEADING C - DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES ), AND (B) DEDUCTION SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THE PROFIT AN D 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 GAINS OF AN UNDERTAKING. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 772, DATED 23-12-1998 CLARIFIED AND ON LY DEALT WITH (B) ABOVE AND DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO MAKE REFEREN CE TO RESTRICTION (A). IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE, ONE HAS TO EXCLUDE PORTION OF THE PROVISION COVERED BY (A) AND IGNORE THE RESTRICTION PLACED THEREIN. WHY SUCH COURSE SHOULD BE ADOPTED WHEN WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE, CLAIMED AND ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, DEDUCTION TO THE E XTENT OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROV ISIONS 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 DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- IA, SUCH PROFIT (TO THE EXTENT) CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHE R PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER C IF PROFIT, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWE D AS A DEDUCTION, IS AGAIN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING DEDUCT ION UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION REFERRED TO ABOVE, THEN RESTRICTION (A) ABOVE IS DISREGARDED AND IGNORED. IT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIC ATION FOR ADOPTING A COURSE PROHIBITED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IT IS NOT POS SIBLE TO IGNORE THE RESTRICTION PLACED AS (A) NOR IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACC EPT THAT IN CIRCULAR NO. 772, THERE IS A SUGGESTION TO IGNORE RESTRICTION (A ) MENTIONED ABOVE. AS PER THE SETTLED LAW, THE COURTS AND THE TRIBUNALS M UST SEE THE MANDATE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND GIVE EFFECT TO IT, AS RIGHTL Y ARGUED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, RESTRICTION (A) ABOVE HAS TO BE RESPECTED AND FOLLOWED. THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF SECTION 8OAB, NO DOUBT, PROVIDES THAT DEDUCTION UNDER EACH SECTION OF CHAPTER VI-A IS TO BE COMPUTED INDEPENDENTLY. BUT, NOT ONLY THE TOTAL SCHEME OF TH E STATUTE BUT SCHEME OF EVERY SECTION IS TO BE READ AND INTERPRETED AND EVERY WORD IS TO BE 4 GIVEN PROPER MEANING. IN SEVERAL SECTIONS UNDER CHA PTER VI-A, IT IS PROVIDED THAT IF DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED UNDER THAT SE CTION, THEN NO DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION UNDER CHAPTER VI- A WOULD BE ALLOWED. THUS, WHERE DEDUCTION UNDER SUCH SPECIFIC SECTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED, THERE IS NO NEED TO COMPUTE DE DUCTION PERMISSIBLE UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A. I T WOULD BE A FUTILE AND USELESS EXERCISE. THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF COM PUTING DEDUCTION IN ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ARISE AND SECTION 8OAB WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES NO SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM WHERE DEDUCTION IS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER MORE THAN O NE SECTION OF CHAPTER VIA. IT CANNOT FOLLOW THAT OTHER SECTIONS P ROVIDING MODIFICATION OR CHANGE IN MANNER OR MODE OF COMPUTA TION ARE TO BE IGNORED. THERE ARE SEVERAL SECTIONS LIKE SECTIONS 8 OHHA, 8OHHA(5), 8OHHA(6) PROVIDING MANNER OF DEDUCTIONS OR PREFEREN TIAL TREATMENT TO ONE DEDUCTION OVER ANOTHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF CHAPTER VI -A. IT IS PROVIDED THAT EFFECT SHALL FIRST BE GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR SE CTION. ALL THE SECTIONS ARE TO BE READ TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY. THE FACT THAT SECTION 8OAB STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, AS THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN VARIOUS PROVISIONS. RESTRIC TION PLACED ON DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF SAME ELIGIBLE PROFIT CANNOT BE READ AS AN ABSURDITY OR CONFLICT. HAVING REGARD TO ABOVE PROVISIONS, PUTTIN G BAN ON ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER OTHER SECTIONS, COM PUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER THOSE SECTIONS WOULD SERVE NO PURPO SE. IT CANNOT FOLLOW FROM ABOVE THAT RESTRICTION OF THOSE SECTION S ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AS SCHEME IN THOSE SECTIONS IS DIFFERENT FROM SCHEME OF SECTION 8OAB WHICH STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUS E NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING.. ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD LEAD TO COMPLICATIONS NOT ENVISAGED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, IN A C ASE WHERE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THEN IN THE L IGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (9), SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS (TO THE EXTENT) SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE RELEVANT C HAPTER. FOR EXAMPLE, IF TOTAL PROFIT OF UNDERTAKING IS RS.100 A ND 20 PER CENT IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR 80-IB , THEN FOR PURPOSES OF OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE SECTION 8OHHC, ON SUCH 20 PER CENT OF PROFIT, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED. THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER OTHER SECTIONS HAS TO BE COMPUTED AFTER REDUCING SUCH PRO FIT OF 20 PER CENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WILL BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO 80 PER CENT OF THE PROFIT. SUCH DEDUCTION CANNOT BE GOVERNED BY SECTIO N 8QAB ALONE, AS IT IS A CASE IN WHICH DEDUCTIONS UNDER MORE THAN ON E SECTION OF 5 CHAPTER VI-A ARE TO BE ALLOWED; ADJUSTMENT OF DEDUC TIONS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS IS TO BE MADE. IT IS NOT A CASE WH ERE PROVISION BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA IS APPLICABL E. THEREFORE, PROVISION OF SECTION 8OAB IS OF NO ASSISTANCE IN RE SOLVING THE PROBLEM IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHERE THE LEGIS LATURE INTENDED TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION OUT OF SOME OTHER DE DUCTION, A DIFFERENT PHRASEOLOGY WAS USED. BY REFERRING TO SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 8OHHB; SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 8OHHBA; A ND SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80-IE, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN ALL THESE PROVISIONS, THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFICALLY USED N ON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHEREAS NO OVERRIDING EFFECT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SECT ION 80-IA OR 80-LB. THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT IN TEND THAT DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER ABOVE PROV ISIONS 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 MEANS IN ORDE R TO ACHIEVE ITS GOAL AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INSISTENCE O N IDENTICAL LANGUAGE. WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYE D, WHICH, IF CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 8OHHC WA S A SPECIAL PROVISION PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE TO EXPORTERS EARNI NG PRECIOUS FOREIGN EXCHANGE FOR THE COUNTRY WHEREAS SECTION 80-IA OR 8 0-LB COVERS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FIELD. THEREFORE, READING OF PROV ISION OF SECTION 80- IA(9) IN SECTION 8OHHC WOULD ONLY LEAD TO AN APPARE NT CONFLICT. THERE WAS NO FORCE IN ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. OF COURSE ALL THE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER AND GIVEN A HARMONIOUS CONS TRUCTION. ALL PROVISIONS ARE INTER-RELATED AND CANNOT BE READ DE HORS, ONE AND OTHER. THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS (S UPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (9) ON A CCOUNT OF SECTION 80-IA IS TO BE READ IN ALL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTE R VI-A AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO IGNORE THE RESTRICTION THAT PROFIT AND GAINS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED AS EXEMPT UNDER SUB-SECTION (9), (TO THE EX TENT ALLOWED) CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF CHAP TER C ABOVE CONSTRUCTION IN READING RESTRICTION IN ALL RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER CHAPTER C IS LEADING TO NO CONTRADICTION OR ABSUR DITY AND IS REASONABLE. IT IS THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY NOT TO ALL OW REPEATED DEDUCTION OF SAME PROFIT UNDER SECTIONS OF DEDUCTIONS IN CHAP TER VI-A. 6 THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT OR CONTRADICTION IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE. DOING OTHERWISE WOULD, NO DOUB T, BE DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CLEAR LANGUAGE. THE ARGUMENT WAS, A CCORDINGLY, 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 SEC TIONS 80-IA AND 80- LB. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO CIRCULAR OF THE CBD T NO. 772, DATED 23-12-1998 TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE LEGISLATURE ONLY I NTENDED TO LIMIT DEDUCTION UNDER ALL THE PROVISIONS TO 100 PER CENT OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE RESTRICTION OR DEDUCT PR OFIT ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA /80-LB FROM DEDUCTION PERMISSIBLE UND ER SECTION 8OHHC. 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 ABSURDIT Y. WHERE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY OR ABSURDITY, NO TES 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 23-12-1998, AS ALREADY HELD THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS DEALING WITH RESTRICTION (B) WHICH PROVIDED THAT DE DUCTION (UNDER OTHER PROVISION WITH HEADING C), SHALL IN NO CASE EXCE ED 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 THAT THERE ARE TWO RES TRICTIONS IN THE SUB- SECTION AND CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD IS DEALING ONLY W ITH THE SECOND RESTRICTION. IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT CIRCULA R WAS ISSUED TO DO AWAY WITH FIRST RESTRICTION INCORPORATED IN THE PROVISIO NS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ALLOWING REPEATED DEDUCTIONS O N PROFIT AND GAIN ON WHICH DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-I A OR 80-LB OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 80-IA (9)/80-IB(9A) IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. DEDUCTION OF PROFITS AND GAINS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA /80-L B IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AGAIN UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION. THERE IS T HEN FURTHER RESTRICTION ON TOTAL DEDUCTION NOT EXCEEDING ELIGIB LE PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING. FURTHER RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IA OR 8 0-LB NOT TO ALLOW REPEATED DEDUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO SAME PROFIT. THIS IS MORE THAN 7 CLEAR FROM USE OF WORDS SUCH PROFIT IN SECTION 80 -IA/ 80-LB. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE HAS TO BE IDENTITY OF PROFITS ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER MORE THAN ONE PROVISION UNDER SCHAPTER VI-A IS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE ON TH E PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED UND ER SECTION 80-IA OR 80-18 AND THEN ON THE SAME PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKIN G DEDUCTION UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE 8OHHC IS CLAIMED. IN SUCH CAS ES, RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD APPLY. IF PROFI TS ARE DERIVED FROM SEPARATE UNDERTAKINGS, RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN ABO VE PROVISION WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SECTION 80-IA(9 ) CANNOT CONTROL THE MECHANISM OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 8OHHC(3). IT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT P ROVISION ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ASSUMPTION IS APPLICABLE, THEN THOSE P ROVISIONS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY. SAID CONTENTION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS ALL STATUT ORY PROVISIONS ARE INTER-RELATED AND ARE PARTS OF ONE SCHEME. THIS CAN NOT BE READ DE HORS ONE AND OTHER. RESTRICTION IMPOSED IN SECTION 80-IA (9)/ 80-IB(9.4) IS TO BE READ IN ALL SECTIONS AND GIVEN EFFECT TO. THI S 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 8 0H, 8OHHC, ETC.) IS TO BE REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION AL LOWED UNDER SECTION 80-IA/80-IB. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERE NCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLA NT THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OR 80IB AND U/S 80HHC IS TO BE C OMPUTED INDEPENDENTLY AND IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REDUCING THE GROSS BUSINESS INCOME FIRST BY THE DEDUCTION ALLOWE D U/S 80IA OR 80IB AND THEN GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ONLY ON THE BALANCE 8 BUSINESS INCOME. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE S TANDS DISMISSED. 3 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 04-09-2 009 SD/- SD/- (R V EASWAR) VICE-PRESIDENT (P K BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 04-09-2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED, 1 ST FLOOR, DHANLAXMI CHAMBERS, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 2. THE DCIT (OSD) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABA