The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Dabur India Ltd

$~R21 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 496/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Ashok Manchanda,Mr.Raghvendra K. Singh, SeniorStanding Counsels for Revenue. versus M/S DABUR INDIA LTD...... RespondentThrough :Mr. K.N. Ahuja, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHO R D E R%15.11.2017 This appeal filed by the Revenue in case of M/s Dabur India Limitedrelates to Assessment Year 1997-98. The appeal was admitted for hearing on26[th]July, 2005 on the following substantial question of law: “What is the effect of omission of Section 34(1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1.4.1988 on the claim ofdeduction under Section 80-IA of the Act?” 2.Learned counsel for parties agree that the aforesaid question of law iscovered by the decision of this court in Assessee’s own case dated 1[st]September, 2008 in ITA 579/2007 Dabur India Limited v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, New Delhi, inter alia holding that in order to claim deductionunder Chapter VI-A, one must calculate the gross total income, before claiming deductions contemplated under Chapter VI-A. Gross total incomeis required to be computed as per Sections 29 to 43A which includes Section32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore one cannot excludedepreciation allowance while computing deduction under Section 80-IA ofthe Act. 3.The aforesaid ratio finds approval and affirmation in the recentdecision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 238/2012, Plastiblends IndiaLimited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr.,decided on 9[th]October, 2017. 4.In view of the aforesaid position, the substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the Appellant-Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee. There would be no orders as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J NOVEMBER 15, 2017 j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J