Derived or not Derived From …….. ……

At a time when the import of the issue has been fairly understood and addressed by the law makers and the practitioners and was believed to have been settled, it has resurfaced with beautiful facts. The recent decision of the Bombay High Court on the subject has revived the controversy with an immortal life span.

CYBER PEARL’S CASE
The issue recently came up for consideration in the case of Cyber Pearl IT Park Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 399 ITR 310 before the Madras High Court in the context of section 80IAB for A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee in that case was engaged in the business of developing and leasing of Information Technology parks. For the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80-IAB of the Act to the extent of Rs. 4,20,59,087 which included a sum of Rs. 2,52,04,544 representing interest which the assessee had earned from security deposits from persons who had taken on lease the facilities set up in the parks. In form 10CCB filed by the assessee, the claim for deduction u/s. 80-IAB was restricted to a sum of Rs. 1,68,54,543. Based on this, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, restricting the deduction to a sum of Rs. 1,68,54,543 and treating the sum of Rs. 2,52,04,544, which was interest received by the assessee from security deposits given by the lessees as income from other sources. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO and the Tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim for deduction qua the balance sum, i.e. Rs. 2,52,04,544 on two grounds: (a) that via auditor’s certificate issued in form 10CCB, the claim u/s. 80-IAB had been restricted to Rs. 1,68,54,543, (b) that the interest received from security deposit in the sum of Rs. 2,52,04,544 had “no direct nexus” with the industrial undertaking.

On further appeal to the High Court, the assessee contended the following:

–    the Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that in the income tax return filed by the assessee, the entire amount, of Rs. 4,20,59,087 was claimed as a deduction. The learned counsel submitted that because the mere fact that Form 10CCB restricted the claim to a sum of Rs. 1,68,54,543 could not be a ground for denying the deduction, which the assessee could otherwise claim as a matter of right u/s. 80-IAB.
–   the interest derived from the security deposit upon its investment in fixed deposits with the bank, was income, which was derived from business of developing a Special Economic Zone and therefore, was amenable to deduction u/s. 80-IAB.
–   the issue was settled in favour of deduction by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 420 (Bom).
 
In response on the other hand, the Revenue made the following submissions.
–    for the interest earned from security deposits, to be amenable to deduction u/s. 80-IAB, it should have a “direct nexus” with the subject activity, which was, the business of developing a special economic zone.
–    only those profits and/or gains, which were derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from “any” business of developing a Special Economic Zone, would come within the purview of section 80-IAB.
–   in the following cases, the courts have held that the deduction was not eligible:

(i)    CIT vs. A.S. Nizar Ahmed and Co., 259 ITR 244 (Mad)
(ii)    CIT vs. Menon Impex P. Ltd., 259 ITR 403 (Mad)
(iii)    Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC)
(iv)    CIT vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip, 289 ITR 475 (Delhi)
(v)    Dollar Apparels vs. ITO, 294 ITR 484 (Mad)
(vi)    Sakthi Footwear vs. Asst. CIT(No.1), 317 ITR 194 (Mad)
(vii)    CIT vs. Mereena Creations, 330 ITR 199 (Delhi) and
(viii)    CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corpo.Ltd., 216 ITR 535 (Mad).

The High Court, on an analysis of provisions of section 80-IAB, observed that an assessee was entitled to a deduction of the profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from the business of developing a special economic zone. On examination of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd.’s case (supra), and applying it to the case before it, the court observed as under;
–   Pandian Chemicals Ltd. was a case for deduction u/s. 80-HH in respect of interest on deposits with Electricity Board for supply of electricity to industrial undertaking and the issue therein was whether such interest could be construed to be profits and gains ‘derived’ from an industrial undertaking and were eligible for deduction.
–    the Supreme Court rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that the term ‘derived’ concerned itself with effective source of income only and did not embrace the income by way of interest on deposits made, which was a
secondary source.

–    only such income was eligible for deduction which had a direct or immediate nexus with the industrial undertaking.
–   the term ‘derived from’ had a narrower meaning than the term ‘attributable to’ and excluded from its scope the income with secondary or indirect source as was explained by various decisions of the apex court including in the cases of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 84 (SC) and Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narain Singh, 16 ITR 325 (PC) and Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579(SC).
–    the Madras High Court in the case of Menon Impex P. Ltd. 259 ITR 403 denied the deduction us. 10A by holding that interest on deposits made for obtaining letter of credit was not ‘derived from’ the undertaking carrying on the business of export.
–    the contention of the assessee that the decisions cited by the Revenue did not deal with the provisions of
section 80-IBA of the Act was to be rejected as the provisions of section 80-IBA were found to be para materia with the provisions dealt with in those cases, as all of them were concerned with the true meaning of the term ‘derived from’ whose width and amplitude was narrower in scope than the term “attributable to”.
–    once it was found that income was from a secondary source, it fell outside the purview of desired activity, which in the case before them was the business of developing a Special Economic Zone.

In deciding the case, in favour of the Revenue, the court was unable to persuade itself to agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 421 which had taken a contrary view on the subject of deduction of interest.

JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI’S CASE
The issue had come up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 421 in the context of section 80-IA for A.Y. 1997-98.

In that case, the court was asked to address the following substantial question of law; “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits with the bank and other interest income are eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?”

On behalf of the Revenue, a strong reliance was placed upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd.(supra) and also the judgement of the Madras High Court in the same case reported in 233 ITR 497.

On behalf of the assessee, equally strong reliance was placed on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eltek SGS P. Ltd.,300 ITR 6, wherein the Delhi High Court had considered the very same issue, and in the process examined the applicability of the judgement relied upon by the Revenue, and the court in Eltek’s case. The Delhi High Court had distinguished the language employed under sections 80-IB and 80-HH and had observed as under :
“ That apart s. 80-IB of the Act does not use the expression ‘profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking’ as used in s. 80-HH of the Act but uses the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-section’..

A perusal of the above would show that there is a material difference between the language used in s. 80-HH of the Act and s. 80-IB of the Act. While s. 80-HH requires that the profits and gains should be derived from the industrial undertaking, s. 80-IB of the Act requires that the profits and gains should be derived from any business of the industrial undertaking. In other words, there need not necessarily be a direct nexus between the activity of an industrial undertaking and the profits and gains.

Learned counsel for the Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC). However, on a reading of the judgement we find that also deals with s. 80-HH of the Act and does not lay down any principle different from Sterling Foods, 237 ITR 579 (SC). Reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 84 (SC) and the decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that the expression ‘derived from an industrial undertaking’ is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking.”

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeals, approving the decision of the Tribunal, holding that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal of the Revenue. The deduction allowed u/s. 80-IA to the assessee was upheld.

OBSERVATIONS
A few largely undisputed understandings, in the context of the issue under consideration, of the eligibility of an income from interest or any other receipt, are listed as  under:
–   the term ‘attributable to’ is wider in its scope than the term ‘derived from’,
– the
term ‘attributable to’ is wider in its scope than the term ‘derived from’,
which has a limited scope of inclusion.
–    the term ‘attributable to’ usually includes in its scope, a secondary and indirect source of income, besides the primary and the derived source of income.
–    as against the above, the term ‘derived from’ means a direct source and may include a source which is intricately linked to the main activity which is eligible for deduction.
–    the difference between the two terms is fairly addressed to, explained and understood, not leaving much scope for assigning a new meaning.

It is also understood that the term ‘derived from’, is capable of encompassing within its scope, such income or receipts which can also be construed to be the primary source of the eligible activity or is found to be intricately and inseparably linked thereto.

Under the circumstances, whether a particular receipt or an income is derived from or not and is eligible for the deduction or not are always the questions of fact and no strait-jacket formula can be supplied for the same.

The legislature has from time to time enacted provisions for conferring incentives for promoting the preferred or the desired activities or businesses, over a period of almost a century. Obviously, the language employed in the multitude of sections and provisions varies and thereby, it has become extremely difficult to apply the ratio of one decision to the facts of another case, as a precedent. A little difference in the language employed by the legislature invites disputes, leading to a cleavage of judicial views as is seen by the present controversy under discussion. At times, it becomes very difficult to resolve an issue simply on the basis of the language alone, even where the provisions are otherwise required to be construed liberally, in favour of the tax payers.

An attempt has been made to list down a few of the examples of the language used in the different provisions of chapter VI-A and sections 10 A to 10 C of the Act.
–    Profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking.
–    Profits and gains derived from the business of a hotel or a ship.
–    Profits and gains derived from a small scale industry.
–    Profits and gains derived from a business of …..
–   Profits and gains derived from execution of a Housing Project.
–    Profits and gains derived from exports.
–    Profits and gains derived from services.
–    Profits and gains derived from such business.
–    Profits and gains derived from an undertaking or an enterprise from any business of …..
–    100% of the profits.
–   Profits and gains derived by an undertaking from exports.

The list, though not exhaustive, highlights the possibility of supplying different meanings based on the difference in the language employed by the legislature. The major difference that has emerged in the recent years is between the following three terminologies:
–    Profits and gains derived from an undertaking .
–    Profits and gains derived from an undertaking or an enterprise from any business of …..
–   Profits and gains derived from a business of …..

The rules of interpretation provide that each word, or the omission thereof, should be assigned a specific meaning and should be believed to be inserted or omitted by the legislature with a purpose. Nothing should be believed to be meaningless. Applying this canon of interpretation, the Delhi High Court in the case of Eltek SGS P. Ltd. 300 ITR 006, in the context of section 80 IB, refused to follow the decisions in the cases of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Sterling Foods (supra) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and Ritesh Industries, 274 ITR 324 (Delhi), by distinguishing the language used in sections 80 HH and 80 I from that used in section 80- IB of the Act. The High Court chose to strengthen its case by referring to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indian Gelatin and Chemical Ltd. 275 ITR 284 (Guj). As noted earlier, in respect of income from interest, the Bombay High Court in Jagdishprasad’s case has followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Eltek’s case in respect of duty drawback.

It is crucial to appreciate the difference in the language in section 80HH, section 80-I and section 80-IB of the Act. The language used in section 80-IB of the Act is a clear departure from the language used in section 80-HH and section 80-I of the Act. It is this choice of words that makes all the difference to the controversy that we are concerned with.

The court in Eltek’s case found it to be not necessary to go as far as the Gujarat High Court had done in coming to the conclusion that duty drawback was profit or gain derived from the business of an industrial undertaking. It was sufficient for the Court to stick to the  language used in section 80-IB of the Act and come to the conclusion that duty drawback was profit or gain derived from the business of an industrial undertaking. The language used in section 80-IB of the Act, though not as broad as the expression ‘attributable to’ referred to by the Supreme Court in Sterling Foods and Cambay Electric’s cases   is also not as narrow as the expression ‘derived from’. The expression “derived from the business of an industrial undertaking” is somewhere in between.

The distinction between the language employed in two different provisions has been noticed favourably by the courts in the judgements in the cases of Dharampal Premchand Ltd., 317 ITR 353 (Delhi) and Kashmir Tubes, 85 Taxmann.com 299 (J &K). In contrast, the Punjab & Haryana High Court following Liberty India, 317 ITR 258 (SC), has denied the deduction in spite of being informed about the difference in the language employed in the two provisions. [Raj Overseas, 317 ITR 215 and Jai Bharat Gums, 321 ITR 36].

A serious note needs to be taken of the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Asian Cement Industries, 261 CTR 561 wherein the court on a combined reading of section 80-IB(1) with section 80-IB(4), in the context of interest, held that nothing turned on the difference in language between the sections 80HH and 80IB and that the law laid down by the Supreme court in the cases of Sterling Foods (supra) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) applied to section 80-IB as well. Similarly, the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Conventional Fasteners, 88 Taxmann.com 163 held that the difference noted by the High Court in Eltek and Jagdishprasad’s cases was not of relevance and the ratio of the Supreme Court’s decisions continued to apply, in spite of the difference in language of the provisions.

Lastly, a careful reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meghalaya Steels, Ltd., 383 ITR 217 for a better understanding of the subject on hand. A duty drawback or refund of excise duty or receipt of an insurance claim or sale proceeds of scrap and such other receipts has obviously a better case for qualifying for deductions.

The better view appears to be that the use of different languages and terminologies in some of the provisions has the effect of expanding the scope of such provisions for including such incomes that may otherwise be derived from secondary source of the activity; more so, on account of the accepted position in law that an incentive provision should be construed in a manner that allows the benefit, than that denies the benefit. _