M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 928, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(Civil Appeal Nos.1581-1582 of 2005)
MARCH 01, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 80HH(1), 80A, 80AB and ss. 30 to
43D – Assessees claimed deduction u/s. 80HH @ 20% of profits
and gains, i.e. gross profits – Whereas, the stand of the Income Tax
Department was that deduction @ 20% is to be computed after
taking into account depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and
investment allowance – In other words, as per Department, the
income of the assessee is to be computed in accordance with the
provisions contained in ss.28 to 44DB which are the provisions for
computation of ‘income’ under the head ‘profits and gains of
business or Professions’ and once income is arrived at, 20% thereof
is allowable as deduction u/s. 80HH – Further, the Revenue sought
the application of s.80AB – Held: In the instant case, Assessment
Years 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 were under consideration –
s.80HH specifically mentions that deduction @ 20% of ‘profit and
gains’ – Reading of s. 80HH along with s. 80A would clearly signify
that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains i.e. before
computing the income as specified in ss. 30 to 43D of the Act –
Insofar as s.80AB is concerned, the said section was inserted by
Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1st April, 1981 – Clearly,
s.80AB is a provision made with prospective effect –
Therefore, it
cannot apply to the Assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 –
Finance (No.2) Act, 1980.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 insofar
as assessment of income is concerned, particularly, with reference
to computing the income as provided in Chapter IV of the Act
and contrasted it with the deductions that are allowable under
Chapter VI-A of the Act while computing total income. That
scheme itself draws distinction between the concept ‘income’ on
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 928
928
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
the one hand and ‘profits and gains’ on the other hand. Insofar as
computation of income under the head ‘profits and gains’ from
business or profession is concerned, Section 28 of the Act
mentions various kinds of incomes which are chargeable under
this head.  Therefore, all those incomes specifically mentioned
in that provision when earned by a particular assessee, are to be
aggregated to arrive at profits and gains of the assessee.  Section
29 thereof mentions the method of arriving at ‘income’ which is
to be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in
Sections 30-43D of the Act.  Sections 30-43D contain deductions
of various kinds which are in the nature of expenditure or the
like nature.  After providing the deductions admissible in these
provisions, one arrives at the figure  of net profits which would
become the net income under the head ‘profits and gains of
business or profession’. In contrast, as mentioned above, under
Chapter VI-A of the Act certain deductions are given by way of
incentives. Assessees may earn these deductions on fulfilling the
eligibility conditions contained therein, even when they are not
in the nature of any expenditure incurred by the assessee. Here,
Section 80A of the Act provides that in computing the total income
of assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income,
in accordance with the subject of the provisions of this Chapter,
the deductions specified in Sections 80C to 80U.  As mentioned
above, Sections 80C to 80U contain different subject matters and
also specify particular percentage of deductions for a particular
period.  Significantly, Section 80A itself uses the expression ‘from
his gross total income’ as it states that deduction is to be allowed
to an assessee ‘from his gross total income’. Moreover, different
provisions from Sections 80C to 80U, while mentioning the
percentage at which and for which period a particular deduction
is allowable, also specifies as to how such a deduction is to be
worked out, namely, specific percentage of deduction of which
component.  These sections provide different parameters. Insofar
as Section 80HH is concerned, it specifically mentions that
deduction @ 20% of ‘profits and gains’. Reading of Section 80HH
along with Section 80A would clearly signify that such a deduction
has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the
income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act. [Paras 18
and 19] [942-F-H; 943-A-F]
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Delhi-II (2000) 9 SCC 63 – overruled.
M/s. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Additional C.I.T.,
Gujarat-I (1979) 3 SCC 538 : [1979] 3 SCR  984;
Commissioner of Income Tax, T.N.-V, Madras v. Kotagiri
Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd., Kotagiri
(1997) 9 SCC 537 : [1997] 2 SCR  738 – inapplicable.
Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
(1978) 2 SCC 644 : [1978] 3 SCR  660;  H.H. Sir Rama
Varma (Dead) By LRs. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Kerala [1994] 1 Suppl. SCC 473; Distributors (Baroda)
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 43 :
[1985] 1 Suppl.  SCR  778 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2000) 9 SCC 63
overruled
Para 4
[1978] 3 SCR 660
referred to
Para 13
[1979] 3 SCR 984
inapplicable
Para 13
[1994] 1 Suppl. SCC 473
referred to
Para 14
[1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 778
referred to
Para 14
[1997] 2 SCR  738
inapplicable
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos.1581-1582 of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2004 of  the  High
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B.L.T. No.80/87 and D.B.I.T.
No.7/1995
With
Civil Appeal Nos.2875 and 2877 of 2015
Civil Appeal Nos.2416-2417, 2420-2421, 2414-2415, 2418-2419
and 2422-2423 of 2019.
S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv., K. Ajit Singh, Bhargava V. Desai, Akshat
Malpani, Sanjay Jhanwar, Tarun Gupta,  E.C. Agrawala, P.S. Sudheer,
Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.,  Arijit Prasad, Sayooj
Mohandas M., Praveen, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, B.V. Balaram Das, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. Delay condoned.
2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to
be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).  Section 80HH and other
related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note
of.  since we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1979-80 and
1980-81. Section 80HH provides deduction from income at specified
rates in respect of certain industrial undertakings which are covered by
the said provision.  Issue is limited, namely, while computing the deduction
whether it is to be available out of ‘income’ as computed under the Act
or out of ‘profits and gains’, without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’
and ‘investment allowance’.  Language of sub-section (1) of Section
80HH will have to be seen, in order to comprehend the aforesaid issue.
It reads:
“80HH. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly
established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward
areas.
(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any
profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking, or the
business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of this
section, be
allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction
from such profits and gains of an amount equal to twenty per cent
thereof.”
3.  As can be seen from the above, this Section grants deduction
from profits and gains to an undertaking engaged in manufacturing or in
the business of the hotel.  The deduction is admissible at the rate of 20%
of the profits and gains of undertaking for 10 assessment years.  Certain
conditions are to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for such a deduction,
about which there is no dispute insofar as these appeals are concerned.
Conflict is confined to one aspect viz. 20% deduction of gross profits
and gains or net income.  Whereas assessees want deduction at the rate
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
of 20% of profits and gains, i.e., gross profits, the stand of the Income
Tax Department is that deduction at the rate of 20% is to be computed
after taking into account depreciation, unabsorbed depreciation and
investment allowance.  To put it otherwise, as per the Department,  the
income of the assessee is to computed in accordance with the provisions
contained in Sections 28 to 44DB which are the provisions for
computation of ‘income’ under the head ‘profits and gains of business or
profession’.  Once income is arrived at after the application of the
aforesaid provisions, 20% thereof is allowable as deduction under Section
80HH.  The assessees, on the other hand, submit that Section 80HH
uses the expression ‘profits and gains’ which is different from ‘income’.
Therefore, whatever profit and gains are earned by an undertaking
covered by Section 80HH of the Act, 20% thereof is admissible as
deduction.  As a corollary, from such profits and gains of the industrial
undertaking, depreciation or unabsorbed investment allowances which
are the deductions admissible under Sections 32 and 32AB of the Act,
cannot be taken into consideration.
4. We may mention, at this stage, that this Court in the the case of
Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Delhi-II1  has taken the view which is favourable to the Department.
This view is followed by the High Court in the impugned judgment thereby
dismissing
the appeals of the appellants/assessees herein.  The assessees
in these appeals submit that the aforesaid view taken in Motilal
Pesticides case is not a correct view as it ignores certain earlier judgments
on this very issue.  Therefore, according to them, Motilal Pesticides
case needs a re-look.
5. These appeals had come up for hearing before a Devision Bench
of this Court.  After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for
the parties on the aforesaid lines, the Division Bench noted the conflict
and passed orders dated 5th November, 2014, thereby referring the matter
to a larger Bench.  That is how the matters have come up before this
Bench.
6. In order to appreciate the controversy, we would have to go
through certain provisions of the Act in order to understand broadly the
scheme of taxation on the income of assessees.
 1(2000) 9 SCC 63
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
7. Section 4 of the Act is a charging Section which makes total
income of the previous year of every person chargeable to tax at the
rates which may be specified from time to time.  The said Section, thus,
imposes income tax upon a person in respect of his income.  Of course,
income is to be charged at the rate or rates fixed for the year by the
Annual Finance Act.  Also the levy is to be on the total income of the
assessable entity,  computed in accordance with the provisions of the
Act.  Section 5 lays down the scope of the total income.  While computing
the total income, certain incomes are exempted which are not to be
included and these are mentioned in Section 10 of the Act.
8. Section 14 of the Act is the next provision which is relevant for
these appeals.  It is the first provision in Chapter IV which is titled
‘computation of total income’ and, obviously, contains the provision for
computation of total income.  Section 14 enumerates different heads of
income, namely, salaries, income from house property, profits and gains
of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources.
Insofar as income under the head ‘profits and gains of business or
professions’ is concerned, provisions thereto are contained in Sections
28 to 44DB of the Act.  Section 28 specifies various incomes which
shall be chargeable to income tax under this head.  Thereafter, Section
29 provides that income referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in
accordance
with the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43D.  These
sections provide for deductions of various kinds. Among them, Section
32 relates to depreciation,  Section 32AB gives deductions in respect of
certain investment allowance. After providing for admissible deductions
to an assessee, income under this head is ascertained.  In a similar way,
as noted above, income under the other heads is worked out.  If a
particular assessee has income under more than one heads, in the income
tax returns, the said assessee would show the respective incomes under
the aforesaid heads thereby arriving at total income on which the tax
would become payable.
9. Chapter VIA also contains provisions in respect of certain
deductions which are to be made in computing total income. Section
80A of this Chapter stipulates that in computing the total income of an
assessee, there shall be allowed from ‘gross total income’ the deductions
specified in Section 80C to 80U.  It is relevant to point out that though
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Chapter VIA also allows certain deductions in computing total income,
these provisions are not clubbed with the provisions of part of Chapter
IV of the Act. There is a reason for doing so. The provisions made in
Chapter IV are for the purposes of computing total income qua income
under the head ‘profits and gains’ from business or profession. Various
deductions which are specified to be given from the gross total income
are in the nature of expenses incurred or to be treated as expenses. It
may be rents paid, insurance premium paid for building, expenditure
incurred on scientific research, various other kinds of expenditures etc.
The purpose is to arrive at true income after making such expenditure
admissible for deduction.  Deductions provided under Chapter VIA, on
the other hand, are largely in the nature of incentives.  For example,
under Section 80CCA deductions provided is in respect of deposits under
National Savings Scheme or payment to a deferred annuity plan purpose
is to encourage the assessees to make deposits under these Schemes.
Likewise, under Section 80CCC, deduction is given in respect of
contribution to certain Pension funds.  The deductions are also given,
inter alia, for donations for scientific research or rural development, to
newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward
areas, small scale industrial undertakings, housing projects, export business,
businesses earning
convertible foreign exchange etc.
10. It is in the aforesaid  scheme, one has to consider whether
deductions under Section 80HH, which falls under Chapter VIA, is to
be given after applying the provisions for computation of income as
mentioned in Chapter IV of the Act.  Once, we examine the matter
keeping in view the aforesaid nature of scheme, answer becomes
obvious.  Chapter VIA, is a stand alone chapter dehors Chapter IV.
Therefore, provisions relating to various kinds of deductions mentioned
therein have to be construed independent of Chapter IV of the Act.
Another pertinent aspect which is to be borne in mind is that conceptually
‘income or total income’ is different from ‘profits and gains’.  There are
various heads of income and if an assessee is earning income under
more than one heads, all these are to be clubbed together to arrive at
total income. Profits and gains from the business or profession is only
one of the heads of income.
11. We are to examine and interpret the provisions of Section
80HH of the Act keeping in view the aforesaid parameters. As noted
above,  it mentions that in computing the total income of the assessee, a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
deduction from profits and gains of an amount equals to 20% thereof
shall be provided.
12. Argument of Mr. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, is that in Motilal Pesticides’ case, this Court missed
the marked difference in the terms ‘Income’ and ‘Gross Total Income’
as referred to in Section 80AB as against ‘Profits and Gains of
Business’ as appearing in Section 80HH and 80I.  It is argued that the
restrictive clause in Section 80AB is applicable only to the provisions
based on Income/Gross Total Income/Net Taxable Income and is wholly
inapplicable to provisions like 80HH/80I/80IA/80J under which the
deduction has been provided for promoting a particular kind of activity
and is accordingly calculatable on the Profit and Gains of Business,
i.e. such activity. It is argued that Sections 80HH and 80I very
categorically refer to and use the terminology ‘profits and gains of
Industrial Undertakings’.  The terms ‘profits and gains’ and ‘income’
are not same but are different.  The term ‘profits and gains’ has not
been defined under the provisions of the Act whereas the term ‘income’
has been defined.  It is further submitted that there are a number of
provisions under Chapter VIA, some of which refer to the term ‘profits
and gains’.  Whereas some other refer to the term ‘income’. Thus, in
some of the provisions of Chapter VIA, the deduction is intended to be
given out of ‘profits and gains’, whereas in some other sections, the
deduction
has been provided to be given out of ‘income’.  When the
term ‘profits and gains’ has not been defined under the Act, in that
case, its meaning has to be understood as is being understood in
commercial world.
13. The aforesaid arguments is countered by Ms. Vibha Datta
Makhija, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue.  She
argues that the judgment in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co.
Ltd. vs. CIT2, noted in the Reference Order, is on Section 80E of the
Act which has no bearing in the instant case that pertains to Section
80HH.  She also submits that legislative intent would be clear from the
fact that decision in M/s. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Additional C.I.T.,
Gujarat-I3 led to the insertion of Section 80AB in the Act.  The purpose,
therefore, was to take away the effect of the judgment in M/s. Cloth
Traders (P) Ltd.  According to her, Section 80AB makes it clear that
deductions to be made is with reference to Income included in the Gross
2(1978) 2 SCC 644
3(1979) 3 SCC 538
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Total Income under the heading ‘C – Deduction in respect of certain
incomes’.  It also makes it clear that the amount of income of that
nature is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act
(before making any deduction under this Chapter).  That alone shall be
deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or
received by the assessee and which is included in his Gross Total Income.
14.  Her submission is that though Section 80AB came to be
inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1980 with effect from 01.04.1981, it
is clarificatory in nature.  To read the provision in this manner, she has
relied upon the judgment in H.H. Sir Rama Varma (Dead) By LRs. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala4.  She has also referred to the
Constitution Bench judgment in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India & Ors.5, which has over-ruled M/s. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd.,
and in particular paragraph 12 thereof which reads as under:
“12.  Soon after the enactment of Section 80-M a question arose
before the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Cloth Traders Pvt.
Ltd. whether on a true construction of that section, the permissible
deduction is to be calculated with reference to the full amount of
dividends received by the assessee from a domestic company or
with reference to the dividend income computed in accordance
with the provisions of the Act, that is, after deducting the interest
paid on monies
borrowed from earning such income.  The Gujarat
High Court in a judgment delivered on November 28, 1973, held
that the deduction permissible under Section 80-M is liable to be
calculated with reference to the dividend income computed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and not with reference
to the full amount of dividends received by the assessee.  The
assessee being aggrieved by this judgment preferred an appeal to
this Court and this appeal was allowed by the judgment delivered
in Cloth Traders case.  This Court overruled the view taken by
the Gujarat High Court and held that the deduction required to be
allowed under Section 80-M must be calculated “with reference
to the full amount of dividends received from a domestic company
and not with reference to the dividend income as computed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, that is, after making
deductions provided under the Act”.  This decision was given by
the Court on May 4, 1979.”
41994 Supp (1) SCC 473
5(1986) 1 SCC 43
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
13.  Now, according to Parliament, this interpretation placed on
Section 80-M by the summit court was not in conformity with the
legislative intent and it resulted in considerable unjustified loss of
revenue.  Parliament therefore immediately proceeded to set right
what according to it was an interpretation contrary to the legislative
intent and with a view to setting at naught such interpretation.
Parliament, by Section 12 of Finance (No.2) Act, 1980, introduced
in the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80-AA with retrospective
effect from April 1, 1968, that is, the date when Section 80-M
was originally enacted, providing that the deduction required to be
allowed under Section 80-M in respect of inter-corporate dividends
“shall be computed with reference to the income by way of such
dividends as computed in accordance with the provisions of this
Act (before making any deduction under this Chapter) and not
with reference to the gross amount of such dividends”.  It is the
validity of this new Section 80-AA which is challenged in the
present writ petition.  But we may make it clear that what is
challenged is not the prospective operation of Section 80-AA.
That would clearly be unexceptionable because the Legislature
can always impose a new tax burden or enhance an existing tax
liability with prospective effect.  But the complaint of the assessee
was against retrospective effect being given to Section 80-AA,
because that would have the effect of enhancing the
tax burden
on the assessee by setting at naught the interpretation placed on
Section 80-M by the decision in Clothe Traders case and reducing
the amount of deduction required to be allowed under Section 80-
M.  However, as pointed out at the commencement of this
judgment, it would become necessary to examine this complaint
against the constitutional validity of retrospective operation of
Section 80-AA only if we affirm the interpretation placed on
Section 80-M by the decision of this Court in Cloth Traders case.
If we do not agree with the decision of this Court in Cloth Traders
case and take the view that the Gujarat High Court was right in
the interpretation placed by it on Section 80-M in Addl. CIT v.
Cloth Traders Pvt. Ltd., no question of constitutional validity of
the retrospective operation of Section 80-AA would remain to be
considered, because in that event Section 80-AA in its
retrospective operation would be merely clarificatory in nature
and would not involve imposition of any new tax burden.”
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
15. Ms. Makhija also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax, T.N.-V, Madras v. Kotagiri Industrial
Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd., Kotagiri6 wherein provisions of Section
80P of the Act are interpreted in the following manner:
“1. … The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion
of the High Court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the
deduction under Section 80-P of the Income Tax Act should be
allowed before set-off of unabsorbed losses of earlier year?”
xx
xx
xx
5. Reference may be made at this stage to the provisions of Section
80-P which falls in Chapter VI-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of
Section 80-P, which is relevant for the purpose of the case, provides
as follows:
“80-P. (1) Where in the case of an assessee being a cooperative
society, the gross total income includes any income referred to
in sub-section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with
and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified
in sub-section (2), in computing the total income of the
assessee.”
6. For the purpose of Chapter VI-A the expression “gross total
income” is defined in clause (5) of Section 80-B in the following
terms:
“ ‘gross total income’ means the total income computed in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, before making any
deduction under this Chapter.”
7. If Section
80-P(1) is read with the definition of the expression
“gross total income” contained in Section 80-B(5), it has to be
held that for the purpose of making deduction under Section 80-P
it is necessary to first determine the gross total income in
accordance with the other provisions of the Act. This means that
for the purposes of the present case the gross total income must
be determined by setting off against the income the business losses
of the earlier years as required under Section 72 of the Act.
      xx        xx        xx
6(1997) 9 SCC 537
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
12. Having regard to the law as laid down by this Court in
Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 43 : 1986 SCC
(Tax) 159 : (1985) 155 ITR 120] and H.H. Sir Rama Varma [1994
Supp (1) SCC 473 : (1994) 205 ITR 433] , it must be held that
before considering the matter of deduction under Section 80-P(2)
the Income Tax Officer had rightly set off the carried-forward
losses of the earlier years in accordance with Section 72 of the
Act and on finding that the said losses exceeded the income, he
rightly did not allow any deduction under Section 80-P(2) and the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal and the
High Court were in error in taking a contrary view.
13. The principle of statutory construction invoked by Ms
Ramachandran has no application in construing the expression
“gross total income” in sub-section (1) of Section 80-P. In view of
the express provision defining the said expression in Section 80-
B(5) for the purpose of Chapter VI-A, there is no scope for
construing the said expression differently in Section 80-P.”
16. We have considered the aforesaid submissions.
17. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that in these cases, the
Court is concerned with the provisions of Section 80HH of the Act and,
therefore, the language used in that particular provision is to be kept in
mind.  As noted above, sub-section (1) of Section 80HH allows “a
deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to 20 per cent
thereof”, in
computing the total income of the assessee.  Thus, so far as
deduction admissible under this provision is concerned it is from the
‘profits and gains’. In this context first question would be: what meaning
is to be assigned to the expression ‘profits and gains’? Here we find that
the reference order dated 5th November, 2014 rightly draws a distinction
between ‘profits and gains’ and ‘income’.  We would like to reproduce
the said reference order in its entirety as we find that it captures the
legal position lucidly and succinctly:
“1. We are concerned in these cases with Assessment Year 1979-
1980 and Assessment Year 1980-1981. The High Court of
Rajasthan by the impugned judgment dated 17th May, 2004
construed Section 80-HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 following
a judgment of this Court in Motilal Pesticides(I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II (2000) 9 SCC 63. The
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
High Court noticed an argument made before it to the following
effect:
“It is most humbly submitted that the concept ‘profits and gains’
is a wider concept than the concept of ‘income’. The profits
and gains/loss are arrived at after making actual expenses
incurred 2 from the figure of sales by the assessee. It does not
include any depreciation and investment allowance, as admittedly
these are not the expenses actually incurred by the assessee.
However, the term ‘income’ does take into consideration the
deductions on account of depreciation and investment
allowance. Therefore, the term profits and gains are not
synonymous with the term ‘income’.
However, the High Court correctly felt that it was bound by the
judgment of this Court.
2. Motilal Pesticides(I) Pvt. Limited (Supra) is a Judgment of this
Court which affirmed the Judgment of the Delhi High Court
concerning the interpretation of the very same Section 80-HH of
the Income Tax Act. The assessment years also happened to be
the same assessment years as involved in these appeals.
3. The question of law set out by this Court is, whether, on the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in
holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under
Section 80-HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the gross profit of
Rs.34,30,035 (Liquid Section) but on the net income 3 therefrom
for Assessment Year 1979-80?
4. Thereafter, this Court set out Section
80-HH in para 2 and
Section 80-M in para 3 of the Judgment. It will be noticed that
whereas Section 80-HH uses the expression “any profits and gains
derived from”, Section 80-M uses the expression “any income”.
Section 80-M was held, in the Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT
(1979) 3 SCC 538, to mean that for the purpose of that Section,
deduction is to be allowed on the gross total income and not on
net income. This was over-ruled in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1986) 1 SCC 43.
5. Bhagwati,J. who was party to the earlier decision in the Cloth
Traders’ case delivered a judgment in the Distributors( Baroda)
case holding that the Cloth traders’ case was obviously incorrectly
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
decided because the words “any income” cannot possibly refer
to gross total income but referred only to “net income”. Further,
Distributors (Baroda) case followed the judgment of this Court in
Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner
of Income Tax, Gujarat-II, Ahmedabad (1978) 2 SCC 644 which
decision concerned itself with Section 80-E of the Income Tax
Act. Section 80 E reads as follows:-
“80E – Deduction in respect of profits and gains from specified
industries in the case of certain companies- (1) In the case of a
company to which this section applies, where the total income
(as computed in accordance with the other provisions of this
Act) includes any profits and gains attributable to the business
of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of
power or of construction, manufacture or production of any
one or more of the articles or things specified in the list in the
Fifth Schedule, there shall be allowed a deduction from such
profits and gains of an amount equal to eight per cent, thereof,
in computing the total income of the company.
(2) This section applies to
(a) an Indian Company; or (b) any other company which has
made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and
payment of dividends (including dividends on preference shares)
within India. But does not apply to any Indian Company referred
to in Clause (1), or to any other company referred to in clause
(b), if such Indian or other company is a
company referred to
in Section 108 of its total income as computed before applying
the provisions of sub-section (1) does not exceed twenty-five
thousand rupees”.
6. It will be noticed that in marked contrast to the Section under
consideration in this appeal i.e. 80-HH, Section 80-E uses the
expression “total income [as 5 computed in accordance with the
provisions of this Act]” and goes on to speak of any profits and
gains, so computed, for the purpose of deduction under Section
80-E.  It will be seen in the present case the said words are
conspicuous by their absence in Section 80-HH even though the
expression “profits and gains” is the same expression used in
section 80-E.
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
7. The finding in paragraph 4 in Motilal Pesticides (supra) that the
language of Section 80-HH and Section 80-M is the same is, with
respect, prima facie, incorrect. Conceptually, “any income” and
“profits and gains” are different under the Income Tax Act.
(See Section 80-M read with Sections 80-AA & AB, Section 80-
T which speak of “any income” and Section 28 which speaks of
“income from profits and gains” showing thereby that conceptually
the two expressions are understood as distinct in law).
8. In paragraph 5 of the judgment in Motilal Pesticides(Supra),
Shri Ramamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that both Cloth Traders and Distributors
(Baroda) were cases which pertained to Section 80-M only and
this Court had no occasion to consider the application of Section
80-AB with 6 reference to Section 80-HH of the Act. The Court
in repelling this contention referred to another decision in H.H.
Sir Rama Varma V.CIT (1994) Supp(1) SCC 473, which judgment
dealt with the then newly enacted Section 80-AA and 80-AB.
Both these sections again are relatable to deductions made under
Section 80-M; and Section 80-T with which that judgment was
concerned also uses the expression “ any income” as opposed to
“profits and gains”. It will be clear, therefore, that prima facie
Varma’s case again has very little to do with the concept of “profits
and gains” with which we are concerned here. For these
reasons,
the matters be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to
constitute an appropriate Bench to consider the correctness of
the judgment in Motilal Pesticides (supra).”
18. We have already stated, in brief and broadly, the scheme of
the Act insofar as assessment of income is concerned, particularly, with
reference to computing the income as provided in Chapter IV of the Act
and contrasted it with the deductions that are allowable under Chapter
VI-A of the Act while computing total income. That scheme itself draws
distinction between the the concept ‘income’ on the one hand and ‘profits
and gains’ on the other hand. Insofar as computation of income under
the head ‘profits and gains’ from business or profession is concerned,
Section 28 of the Act mentions various kinds of incomes which are
chargeable under this head.  Therefore, all those incomes specifically
mentioned in that provision when earned by a particular assessee, are to
be aggregated to arrive at profits and gains of the assessee.  Section 29
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
thereof mentions the method of arriving at ‘income’ which is to be
computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 30-
43D of the Act.  Sections 30-43D contain deductions of various kinds
which are in the nature of expenditure or the like nature.  After providing
the deductions admissible in these provisions, one arrives at the figure
of net profits which would become the net income under the head ‘profits
and gains of business or profession’. In contrast, as mentioned above,
under Chapter VI-A of the Act certain deductions are given by way of
incentives.  Assessees may earn these deductions on fulfilling the eligibility
conditions contained therein, even when they are not in the nature of
any expenditure incurred by the assessee. Here, Section 80A of the Act
provides that in computing the total income of assessee, there shall be
allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with the subject of
the provisions of this Chapter, the deductions specified in Sections 80C
to 80U.  As mentioned above, Sections 80C to 80U contain different
subject matters and also specify particular percentage of deductions for
a particular period.  Significantly, Section 80A itself uses the expression
‘from his gross total income’ as it states that deduction is to be allowed
to an assessee ‘from his gross total income’.   Moreover, different
provisions from Sections 80C to 80U, while mentioning the percentage
at which and for which period a particular
deduction is allowable, also
specifies as to how such a deduction is to be worked out, namely, specific
percentage of deduction of which component.  These sections provide
different parameters.  Insofar as Section 80HH is concerned, it
specifically mentions that deduction @ 20% of ‘profits and gains’.
19. Reading of Section 80HH along with Section 80A would clearly
signify that such a deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e.,
before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the
Act.  It is correctly pointed out by Division Bench in the reference order
that in Motilal Pesticides case, the Court followed the judgment rendered
in the M/s. Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. which was a case under Section
80M of the Act, on the premise that language of Section 80HH and
Section 80M is the same.  This basis is clearly incorrect as the language
of two provisions is materially different.  We are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that judgment of Motilal Pesticides is erroneous.
We, therefore, overrule this judgment.
20. We are unable to subscribe to the contention of the learned
senior counsel for the Revenue that Section 80AB, which was inserted
M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX  [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 with effect from 1st April, 1981 is
clarificatory in nature.  It is a provision made with prospective effect as
the very Amendment Act says so. Therefore, it cannot apply to the
Assessment Years 1979-80 and 1980-81, when Section 80AB was
brought on the statute book after these assessment years.  This position
becomes clear from the reading of Circular No. 281 dated September
22, 1980 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes itself.  This circular
inter alia describes the reasons for adding new Sections 80AA and
80AB.  It refers to judgment in M/s. Cloth Traders case and mentions
that the directions specified in the aforesaid sections will be calculated
with reference to the net income as computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Act (before making any deduction under Chapter VIA)
and not with reference to the gross amount of such income, subject,
however, to the other requirements of the respective sections.
Notwithstanding the same, this circular also categorically mentions that
it will take effect from April 01, 1981.  Following portion of this circular
is relevant:
“The new section 80AB will take effect from 1st April, 1981, and
will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 1981-82,
and subsequent years.  It should be carefuly noted that the new
section 80AB, unlike section 80AA, will not have any retrospective
operation.”
 21. It is, thus, clear that change in
legal position is brought about
only, with the insertion of Section 80AB and made applicable from
Assessment Year 1981-82.  In view thereof, judgments in the case of
M/s. Cloth Traders relied by the Revenue will be of no relevance.
Likewise, judgment in Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory
Ltd.  decided altogether different question, which can be discerned from
the passages extracted therefrom and will have no application to the
instant case.
22. As a result, all these appeals are allowed.
Ankit Gyan
                               Appeals allowed.