Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation

B.N. KIRPAL, J.

In these appeals by certificate granted by the Kerala High Court, the following question of law has been referred in respect of the assessment year 1978-79

"Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the statutory deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be calculated on the total income before deduction of the amount allowable under the section" *

The Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that in computing the total income for the purpose of section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the total income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of sections 30 to 43A except section 36(1)(viii). In arriving at this decision, the High Court relied upon the observations of this court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

The view which was taken by the Kerala High Court was in consonance with the view taken by the Patna High Court in three decisions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two decisions and the Kerala High Court itself in an earlier decision. It is stated that subsequent to the decision under appeal, other High Courts have also taken the same view. The only dissenting view which has been expressed is by the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. CIT

Having gone through the decisions cited at the Bar, we find that the decision of the High Court following its earlier decision in CIT v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (No. 2), is unexceptionable. The Karnataka High Court has tried to work out the sub-section on the basis of a mathematical formula and has dissented from the decision of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Bihar State Financial Corporation. It may here be mentioned that Civil Appeal No. 3695 of 1982---CIT v. Bihar State Financial Corporation against the aforesaid judgment in, was dismissed by this court on January 20, 1995, thereby affirming the view of the Patna High Court. It may here be noticed that not only the preponderance of the judicial opinion of the various High Courts is in line with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court but the relevant sub-clause (viii) of section 36(1) has subsequently been amended so as to bring it in line with the view of the Patna and the Kerala High Courts. The decision of the Karnataka High Court does not appear to be correct being contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court which stands affirmed by its affirmation by this court on January 20, 1995. The view of the other High Courts is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Act. We, therefore, agree with the decision of the High Court in answering the question of law in the affirmative and in favour of the assesseeThe appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.