[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Wolkem India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, ... on 18 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:54992-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 5/2012
Wolkem India Ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Udaipur
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 19/2012
Wolkem India Ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Udaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
18/12/2025
In Application No.01/2025):-
1. The matter comes up on an application for disposal of the
instant appeals and reframing the substantial question of law.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment
of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Associated Capsules P. Ltd.
v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. (I.T.A. No.
3036/2010), decided on 10.01.2011, deals with a similar issue
relating to the interpretation of Section 80-IA(9) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961, wherein, at the time of hearing, the substantial
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:39:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54992-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-5/2012]
questions of law formulated earlier were reframed into one
question of law.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Accordingly, the earlier framed substantial questions of
law are substituted by following substantial question of law :-
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 80-
IA (9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates that the amount
of profits allowed as deduction under section 80-IA(1) of the
Act has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the
undertaking while computing deduction under any other
provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 ?"
In D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 5/2012 and 19/2012 :-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case
of Associated Capsules P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income-tax & Anr. (I.TA No.3036/2010); decided on
10.01.2011; relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under :-
"41. In the result, we hold that section 80-IA(9) does not
affect the computability of deduction under various
provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, but it affects
the allowability of deductions computed under various
provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, so that the
aggregate deduction under section 80-IA and other
provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A do not exceed
100 per cent. of the profits of the business of the assessee.
Our above view is also supported by the Central Board of
Direct Taxes Circular No. 772 dated December 23, 1998
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:39:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54992-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-5/2012]
((1999) 235 TR (St.) 35), wherein it is stated that section
80-IA (9) has been introduced with a view to prevent the
taxpayers from claiming repeated deductions in respect of
the same amount of eligible income and that too in excess
of the eligible profits. Thus, the object of section 80-IA(9)
being not to curtail the deductions computable under
various provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A, it is
reasonable to hold that section 80-IA(9) affects allowability
of deduction and not computation of deduction. To
illustrate, if Rs.100 is the profits of the business of the
undertaking, Rs. 30 is the profits allowed as deduction
under section 80-IA(1) and the deduction computed as per
section 80HHC is Rs. 80, then, in view of section 80-IA(9),
the deduction under section 80HHC would be restricted to
Rs. 70, so that the aggregate deduction does not exceed
the profits of the business.
42. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by answering the
question raised herein in the negative, that is, in favour of
the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no
order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to refute the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In light of the above submissions, following the decision in
the case of Associated Capsules P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner
of Income-tax & Anr. (supra), the present appeals are also
allowed in the same terms. All pending applications stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
329-330-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 19/12/2025 at 04:39:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
