Deduction u/s.80HHE in case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit u/s.115JA and not on the basis of profit computed under regular provisions of the law applicable to the computation of profits and gains of business or profession.

The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2000- 01. The assessee claimed deduction u/s.80HHE to the extent of Rs.1,56,33,719 against net profit as per profit and loss account amounting to Rs.3,07,84,105 to arrive at the book profit of Rs.1,51,50,386 u/s.115JA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This claim for deduction made by the assessee was rejected by the AO.

According to the AO, since in the present case in normal computation no net profit was left after brought-forward losses of the earlier years got adjusted against the current year’s profit, the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s.80HHE to the extent of Rs.1,56,33,719 for computing book profit u/s.115JA. In Appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The assessee went in appeal, against the order of the CIT(A), before the Tribunal which, following the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 8(3) v. Syncome Formulations (1) Limited, [(2007) 106 ITD 193], took the view that the MAT scheme which includes section 115JA did not take away the benefits given u/s.80HHE. The said judgment of the Special Bench was with regard to computation of deduction u/s.80HHC which, like section 80HHE, fell under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The High Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal. On further appeal, the Supreme Court observed that in the said judgment of Special Bench, which Kishor Karia Chartered Accountant Atul Jasani Advocate Glimpses of supreme court rulings squarely applied to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal had held that the deduction u/s.80HHC (section 80HHE also fell in Chapter VI-A) had to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits, but it had to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where section 115JA was applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between the regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits u/s.115JA was clearly brought out. The Tribunal in the said judgment had rightly held that in section 115JA relief had to be computed u/s.80HHC(3)/3(A).

According to the Tribunal, once law itself declared that the adjusted book profit was amendable for further deductions on specified grounds, in a case where section 80HHC (80HHE in the present case) was operational, it became clear that computation for the deduction under those sections needed to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profit. The Supreme Court noted that in the present case it was concerned with section 80HHE which was referred to in the Explanation to section 115JA, Clause (ix).

According to the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Syncome Formulations (supra) squarely applied to the present case. Following the view taken by the Special Bench in Syncome Formulations (supra), the Tribunal in the present case had come to the conclusion that deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80 HHE had to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit u/s.115JA and not on the basis of the profits computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gains of business. According to the Supreme Court there was no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Syncome Formulations (supra). The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave filed by the Department. Note: In the above context, reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd., which has been analysed by us in the column ‘Closements’ in November, 2010 issue of the Journal.