MAHABIR INDUSTRIESversusPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

484                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 484                 [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A                          MAHABIR INDUSTRIES
                                         v.
              PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 4765-4766 of 2018)
B                                 MAY 18, 2018
                [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
            Income Tax Act, 1961:
             s.80-IC – Deduction under – Entitlement for – To the industrial
C     undertakings which completed substantial expansion – The assessee-
      industrial undertaking in question started availing deduction u/s.
      80-IA from the assessment year 1998-99 for two assessment years –
      From the assessment years 2000-01 to assessment year 2005-06,
      the assessee availed deduction u/s. 80-IB – After s. 80-IC came into
      effect, the assessee having carried out substantial expansion in the
D     assessment year 2006-07, claimed exemption u/s. 80-IC for
      assessment years 2006-07 onwards – Deductions for assessment
      years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were allowed by Assessing Officer –
      However, deductions for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10
      were rejected on the ground that the years 2008-09 and 2009-10
E     being 11th and 12th years of deduction cannot be permitted in view
      of s.80-IC(6) – The order of Assessing Officer was upheld by
      appellate authority as well as appellate Tribunal – High Court also
      held that ten years period to be counted from the assessment year
      1998-99 i.e. when the assessee had claimed deduction for the first
      time u/s. 80-IA and hence deductions for the years 2008-09 and
F     2009-10 not to be allowed – On appeal, held: The purport behind
      three types of deductions u/ss.80-IA, 80-IB and 80-IC is different –
      Therefore, the deductions u/ss.80-IA and 80-IB would be of no
      concern so far as deduction for carrying out substantial expansion
      u/s.80-IC is concerned – The assessee became entitled to deduction
G     u/s.80-IC from the initial year i.e. the year in which substantial
      expansion was completed – The inclusion of period of deduction
      u/ss.80-IA and 80-IB for the purpose of counting 10 years as
      provided in s. 80-IC (6) is limited to those industries which are set-up
      in North-Eastern region – Therefore, period of deduction u/ss. 80-IA
      and 80-IB not to be reckoned for the purpose of benefit of deduction
H     u/s.80-IC to the assessee.
                                        484
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                       485
                  INCOME TAX

      Allowing the appeals, the Court                                  A
      HELD: 1. It was wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer
not to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 80-IC for
the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. [Para 14][495-C]
      2. As per the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 80-IC
no deduction is allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under         B
this Section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the
period of deduction under this Section, or under the second
proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 80-IB or under Section 10C,
as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment years. The total
period of ten years, thus, is to be counted in the three               C
circumstances: (a) When the deduction has been given under
Section 80-IC for a period of ten years, no further deduction is
admissible. (b) When the deduction is given under second proviso
to sub-section (4) of Section 80-IB. This provision pertains to
those industries which are in the North-Eastern Region. (c) When
the deduction is claimed under Section 10C. It is again a special      D
provision in respect of certain industrial undertakings in North-
Eastern Region. [Para 10][492-D-H]
      3. The assessee in the instant case has not got deduction
under Section 80-IC for a period of ten years as he started claiming
deduction under this provision w.e.f. Assessment Year 2006-07.         E
Situation Nos. (b) and (c) mentioned above would not apply to
the assessee as it’s undertaking/enterprise is not established in
North-Eastern Region. It is, thus, clear that the High Court has
failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 80-IC(6) of the
Act state that the total period of deduction under Section 80-IC       F
and Section 80-IB cannot exceed ten assessment years only if
the manufacturing unit was claiming deduction under second
proviso to Section 80-IB(4) of the Act i.e. units located in the
North-Eastern State. [Para 11][492-A-C]
      4. The purport behind the three types of deductions              G
specified in Section 80-IA, Section 80-IB and Section 80-IC is
different. Section 80-IC stipulates the period for which hundred
per cent deduction is to be given and then deduction at reduced
rates is to be given. If the assessee had earlier availed deduction
under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB, that would be of no concern
                                                                       H
486            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     inasmuch as on carrying out substantial expansion, which was
      carried out and completed in the Assessment Year 2006-07, the
      assessee became entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC from
      the initial year. The term ‘initial year’ is referable to the year in
      which substantial expansion has been completed, which legal
      position is stated by the High Court itself and even accepted by
B
      the Department as it has not challenged that part of the judgment.
      The inclusion of period for the deduction is availed under Section
      80-IA and Section 80-IB, for the purpose of counting ten years,
      is provided in sub-section (6) of Section 80-IC and it is limited to
      those industrial undertakings or enterprises which are set-up in
C     the North-Eastern Region. By making specific provision of this
      kind, the Legislature has shown its intent, namely, where the
      industry is not located in North-Eastern State, the period for which
      deduction is availed earlier by an assessee under Section 80-IA
      and Section 80-IB will not be reckoned for the purpose of availing
      benefit of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act. [Para 12][493-
D
      E-H; 494-A]
            Textile Machinery Corporation Limited, Calcutta v. The
            Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta
            (1977) 2 SCC 368: [1977] 2 SCR 762 – held
            inapplicable.
E
                             Case Law Reference
            [1977] 2 SCR 762         held inapplicable       Para 13
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4765-
      4766 of 2018.
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2017 of the High Court
      of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Income Tax Appeal No. 7 and 10 of
      2016 respectively
                                     WITH
G           Civil Appeal No.4767 of 2018.
           Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv, Jay Savla, Ms. Renuka Sahu, Hiten
      Chande, Advs for the Appellant.
            K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv, Ms. Anita Sahani, H.R. Rao,
      Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs for the Respondent.
H
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                                487
                  INCOME TAX

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
       A. K. SIKRI, J. A short question of law arises for consideration
in these appeals. All the appeals are filed by the same party, namely,
Mahabir Industries (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) in which
common respondent is Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Department’). Before stating the question      B
of law, it may be necessary to mention in brief the background under
which the said question of law has arisen inasmuch as this background
would be an enabling factor in understanding the true ambit and scope
of the question of law.
       The assessee manufactures polythene for which it is having its           C
factory in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The activity undertaken by the
assessee, an industrial undertaking, qualified for exemption from income
tax under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’). Section 80-IA of the Act provides for deductions in respect
of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged
in infrastructure development etc. if it fulfills the conditions mentioned in   D
sub-section (4) thereof. Such a deduction is of an amount equal to
hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for
ten consecutive Assessment Years. In nutshell, those undertakings or
enterprises, which fulfill the conditions mentioned in sub-section (4) of
Section 80-IA of the Act, are entitled to total deductions of their profits,    E
which means, no tax is payable and the period for which such undertakings
or enterprises are exempted from payment of tax is ten consecutive
Assessment Years. The assessee admittedly qualified for this deduction
which it started availing from the Assessment Year 1998-99. This
deduction under Section 80-IA was claimed and allowed for two
Assessment Years i.e. 1998-99 and 1999-2000.                                    F

       2. Section 80-IA of the Act was originally introduced in the year
1991 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 w.e.f. April 1, 1991. There were
amendments in the Section from time to time. This Section was amended
by the Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. April 1, 2000. Along with this provision,
Section 80-IB was also introduced for the first time by the same Finance        G
Act, 1999. This provision allows deduction in respect of profits and
gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure
development undertakings. Deduction from such profits and gains is of
an amount equal to such percentage and for such number of Assessment
                                                                                H
488            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     Years as specified in Section 80-IB. Sub-section (4) of Section 80-IB
      provides for hundred per cent deduction for a period of five years and
      thereafter twenty-five per cent. First proviso thereto states that total
      period of deduction is not to exceed ten consecutive Assessment Years.
      Second proviso is a specific provision for industries in the North-Eastern
      Region to which we shall advert to at the appropriate stage. Sub-section
B
      (2) enumerates the conditions which are to be fulfilled by such industrial
      undertakings in order to qualify for deductions from profits and gains
      under that provision.
            3. As mentioned above, for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and
      1999-2000 (i.e. two Assessment Years), the assessee was allowed
C     deduction under Section 80-IA. From the Assessment Year 2000-01 to
      Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee claimed deduction under Section
      80-IB.
             4. Interestingly, another provision in the form of Section 80-IC
      was inserted by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. April 1, 2004. As per this
D     provision, certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special category
      States are allowed deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in
      sub-section (3) of Section 80-IC. The provisions of Section 80-IC provided
      deduction to manufacturing units situated in the State of Sikkim, Himachal
      Pradesh and Uttaranchal and North-Eastern States. The deduction was
E     provided to new units established in the aforesaid States, and also to
      existing units in those States if substantial expansion was carried out.
      The deduction was available @100% for ten Assessment Years for the
      units located in North-Eastern and in the State of Sikkim and for the
      units located in Himachal Pradesh, the deduction was available @100%
      for five years and @25% for next five years. The assessee completed
F     substantial expansion (by investing in new plant and machinery of value
      more than 50% of the value of plant and machinery already installed as
      on 1 April, 2005) to the manufacturing unit situated at Baddi, Himachal
      Pradesh in the Assessment Year 2006-07. In view of the substantial
      expansion, the accused claimed deduction under Section 80-IC @100%
G     for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08, which was also allowed by
      the Assessing Officer (AO) after passing the order under Section 143(3)
      of the Act.
            5. Sub-section (3), as noted above, mentions the period of ten
      Assessment Years commencing with the initial Assessment Year. Sub-
H     section (6) may also be taken note of at this stage which reads as under:
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                             489
            INCOME TAX [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

      “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction      A
      shall be allowed to any undertaking or enterprise under this
      section, where the total period of deduction inclusive of the period
      of deduction under this section, or under the second proviso to
      sub-section (4) of section 80-IB or under section 10C, as the case
      may be, exceeds ten assessment years.”
                                                                             B
       6. As noted above, the assessee had carried out substantial
expansion in the Assessment Year 2006-07 and, therefore, claimed
exemption under Section 80-IC of the Act for Assessment Year 2006-07
onwards. Deductions for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 were allowed.
However, thereafter, deductions for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and
Assessment Year 2009-2010 were rejected by the AO on the ground              C
that this was 11th and 12th year of deduction and as per Section 80-
IC(6), total deductions under Section 80-IC and Section 80-IB cannot
exceed the total period of ten years. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) {CIT(A)} and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld
the order of the AO. The High Court took up the appeals of the assessee      D
along with other similar enterprises who had claimed the benefits.
It framed the following question in those appeals:
      “The moot issue involved in these appeals, inter alia, is as to
      whether an “undertaking or an enterprise” (hereinafter referred
      to as the Unit), established after 7th January, 2003, carrying out     E
      “substantial expansion” within the specified window period, i.e.
      between 7.1.2003 and 1.4.2012, would be entitled to deduction on
      profits @100%, under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Also,
      if so, then for what period.”
       7. This question has been decided in favour of all the assessees.     F
However, insofar as the assessee herein is concerned, keeping in view
that there is a ceiling of ten years as stipulated under Section 80-IC(6),
the High Court has held that ten years period shall be counted from the
Assessment Year 1998-99 when the assessee had claimed deduction
for the first time under Section 80-IA and, therefore, deductions for the
Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 would not be allowed. This            G
is clear from the following discussion in the High Court judgment:
      “46. The moment “substantial expansion” is completed as per
      Section 80-IC (8)(ix), the statutory definition of “initial
      assessment year” [Section 80-IC(8)(v)] comes into play. And
                                                                             H
490      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     consequently, Section 80-IC(3)(ii) entitles the unit to 100%
      deduction for five years commencing with completion of
      “substantial expansion”, subject to maximum of ten years as per
      Section 80-IC(6).
      47. A unit that started operating/existed before 7.1.2003 was
B     entitled to 100% deduction for first five years under Section
      80-IB(4). If this unit completes substantial expansion during the
      window period (7.1.2003 to 31.3.2012), it would be eligible for
      100% deduction again for another five years under Section
      80-IC(3)(ii), subject to ceiling of ten years as stipulated under
      Section 80-IC(6).
C
      48. Applying the aforesaid interpretation, we find there can be
      different fact situations, some of which, we have tried to illustrate;
      (i) a “Unit” established prior to 7.1.2003, claiming deduction under
      Section 80-IB, post insertion of Section 80-IC carries out
      substantial expansion, would be entitled to deduction only under
D     Section 80-IC, at the admissible percentage, for the remaining
      period, which in any case when combined, cannot exceed ten
      years, (ii) just as in the case of the present assessee, a unit
      established after 7.1.2003, carries out substantial expansion only
      in the 8th year of its establishment, for the first five years would
E     have already claimed deduction @ 100%; for the 6th and 7th
      years @ 25%, and then for the period post substantial expansion,
      in our considered view, the initial year of assessment being in the
      8th year, would be entitled for deduction @ 100%, subject to the
      cap of ten assessment years, (iii) the assessee establishes a unit
      after January 2003, say in the year 2005-06 and claims deduction
F     under Section 80-IC for the first time in the assessment year 2006-
      2007 @ 100% of its profits. Thereafter, substantially expands the
      Unit in the year 2009-10, relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11
      can claim deduction @ 100% for next five years subject to the
      cap of ten assessment years, (iv) an existing unit not claiming any
G     deduction under Section 80-IA, 80-IB or 80-IC substantially
      expands in the year 2003 and claims deduction under Section
      80-IC first time in Assessment Year 2004-2005 and then
      substantially expands in the year 2007-2008, can claim deduction
      @ 100% w.e.f. Assessment Year 2008-2009 for next five years,

H
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                             491
            INCOME TAX [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

      (v) the assessee sets up its unit in the year 2000-2001, claiming      A
      deduction under Section 80-IB till the Assessment Year
      2003-2004 and thereafter under Section 80-IC as per law.
      Carrying out Substantial expansion in the Assessment Year
      2004-2005, now claims deduction @ 100% w.e.f. Assessment
      Year 2004-05 again substantially expands in the Assessment Year
                                                                             B
      2008-2009 can claim 100% deduction w.e.f. 2008-2009, (vi) the
      assessee sets up a unit in the year 2005-2006 and does not
      undergo substantial expansion at all can claim deduction under
      Section 80-IC.”
       8. As can be discerned, all other aspects are decided in favour of
the assessees except what is illustrated at (i) and (iv). However, the       C
effect thereof is that insofar as appeals of the assessee herein are
concerned, they are dismissed on the ground that it cannot claim deduction
under Sections 80-IC, 80-IB or 10C for a period exceeding ten years.
      9. In this backdrop, the questions of law which have been framed
by the assessee in these appeals are the following:                          D

      “(a) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in holding that
      the petitioner was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC
      of the Act by virtue of provision sub-section (6), when the same
      was not even applicable to the petitioner?
                                                                             E
      (b) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in holding that
      the provisions of Section 80-IC(6) of the Act apply to all the
      undertaking claiming deduction under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act
      when 80-IC(6) refers to only those undertakings which are covered
      by second proviso to Section 80-IB(4)?
                                                                             F
      (c) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in holding that
      the petitioner is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC for
      a period of 10 assessment years when substantial expansion was
      carried out by the Petitioner and a substantially new unit was
      claiming deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act?
                                                                             G
      (d) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in holding that
      the petitioner was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC
      of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 when the
      total period of deduction of ten years was expiring after
      assessment year 2009-10?”
                                                                             H
492             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            10. As can be seen from the reading of paras 46 and 47 of the
      High Court judgment, it has taken a categorical view that the moment
      ‘substantial expansion’ is completed as per Section 80-IC(8)(ix), the
      statutory definition of ‘initial assessment year’ {Section 80-IC(8)(v)}
      comes into play. As a consequence, Section 80-IC(3)(ii) would entitle
      the unit to hundred per cent deduction for five years commencing with
B
      completion of ‘substantial expansion’ followed by twenty-five per cent
      deduction for next five years i.e. subject to maximum of ten years. Thus,
      the High Court accepts that when the substantial expansion is done in a
      particular Assessment Year and that is made during the period mentioned
      in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC, not only benefit admissible under
C     Section 80-IC shall get triggered, the year in which such substantial
      expansion is completed is to be treated as ‘initial assessment year’.
      Having said so, it has put a cap of ten years by invoking the provision of
      Section 80-IC(6). We have already reproduced the provisions of sub-
      section (6) of Section 80-IC. As per this provision, no deduction is allowed
      to any undertaking or enterprise under this Section, where the total period
D
      of deduction inclusive of the period of deduction under this Section, or
      under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 80-IB or under
      Section 10C, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessment years. The
      total period of ten years, thus, is to be counted in the following three
      circumstances:
E     (a) When the deduction has been given under Section 80-IC for a period
      of ten years, no further deduction is admissible.
      (b) When the deduction is given under second proviso to sub-section (4)
      of Section 80-IB. The said second proviso reads as under:

F           “Provided further than in the case of such industries in the North-
            Eastern Region, as may be notified by the Central Government,
            the amount of deduction shall be hundred per cent. of profits and
            gains for a period of ten assessment years, and the total period of
            deduction shall in such a case not exceed ten assessment years.”

G           This provision pertains to those industries which are in the
      North-Eastern Region.
      (c) When the deduction is claimed under Section 10C. It is again a
      special provision in respect of certain industrial undertakings in
      North-Eastern Region.
H
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                               493
            INCOME TAX [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

       11. The assessee in the instant case has not got deduction under        A
Section 80-IC for a period of ten years as he started claiming deduction
under this provision w.e.f. Assessment Year 2006-07. Situation Nos. (b)
and (c) mentioned above would not apply to the assessee as it’s
undertaking/enterprise is not established in North-Eastern Region. It is,
thus, clear that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the provisions
                                                                               B
of Section 80-IC(6) of the Act state that the total period of deduction
under Section 80-IC and Section 80-IB cannot exceed ten assessment
years only if the manufacturing unit was claiming deduction under second
proviso to Section 80-IB(4) of the Act i.e. units located in the North-
Eastern State.
       12. The matter can be looked into from another angle. Under             C
Section 80-IA, deduction is provided to such industrial undertakings or
enterprises which are engaged in infrastructure development etc.
provided they fulfill the conditions mentioned in sub-section (4) thereof.
Section 80-IB makes provisions for deduction in respect of those industrial
undertakings, other than infrastructure development undertakings, which        D
are enumerated in the said provision. On the other hand, the intention
behind Section 80-IC is to grant deduction to the units making new
investments in the State by establishing new manufacturing unit or even
to the existing manufacturing unit which carried out substantial
expansions. The purport behind the three types of deductions specified
in Section 80-IA, Section 80-IB and Section 80-IC is, thus, different.         E
Section 80-IC stipulates the period for which hundred per cent deduction
is to be given and then deduction at reduced rates is to be given. If the
assessee had earlier availed deduction under Section 80-IA and Section
80-IB, that would be of no concern inasmuch as on carrying out substantial
expansion, which was carried out and completed in the Assessment Year          F
2006-07, the assessee became entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC
from the initial year. The term ‘initial year’ is referable to the year in
which substantial expansion has been completed, which legal position is
stated by the High Court itself and even accepted by the Department as
it has not challenged that part of the judgment. The inclusion of period
for the deduction is availed under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB, for        G
the purpose of counting ten years, is provided in sub-section (6) of Section
80-IC and it is limited to those industrial undertakings or enterprises
which are set-up in the North-Eastern Region. By making specific
provision of this kind, the Legislature has shown its intent, namely, where
                                                                               H
494                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     the industry is not located in North-Eastern State, the period for which
      deduction is availed earlier by an assessee under Section 80-IA and
      Section 80-IB will not be reckoned for the purpose of availing benefit of
      deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act.
             13. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not dispute that
B     sub-section (6) of Section 80-IC would get attracted when the industry
      is located in the North-Eastern Region. Having faced with this situation,
      he raised an altogether different argument for consideration by referring
      to Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as
      the ‘1922 Act’), which was also a provision which granted exemption
      from income in respect of newly established industrial undertaking. He
C     submitted that this Court in Textile Machinery Corporation Limited,
      Calcutta v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta1
      has held that the true test for ascertaining whether industrial undertaking
      is ‘formed by reconstruction of business already in existence’ (which
      was the expression used in Section 15C of 1922 Act), is not whether the
D     new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of the existing business
      of the assessee but whether it is a new and identifiable undertaking
      separate and distinct from existing business. In fine, the endeavour of
      learned senior counsel was that the assessee cannot be treated as an
      industrial undertaking which has reconstructed the business i.e. made
      substantial expansion. This argument has to be rejected for at least two
E     reasons:
             (i) Section 15C of the 1922 Act provided exemption from tax to
      newly established industrial undertaking if they are not ‘formed by
      reconstruction of business already in existence’. Thus, under the
      said provision, if it was found that an industrial undertaking is formed by
F     reconstruction of business already in existence, then it was entitled to
      any exemption under Section 15C. It is in that context the Court was
      considering the meaning of reconstruction of business. On the other
      hand, the words under Section 80-IC are ‘substantial expansion’. Thus,
      discussion contained in the said judgment would have no application to
G     the instant case.
             (ii) Insofar as the factum of substantial expansion of the assessee’s
      unit in the Assessment Year 2006-07 is concerned, the same is not subject
      matter of any controversy in the instant case. It has been accepted by
      1
          (1977) 2 SCC 368
H
 MAHABIR INDUSTRIES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF                              495
            INCOME TAX [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

the Department that assessee had carried out substantial expansion.           A
Precisely, for this reason, the AO had allowed deduction for Assessment
Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, issue is not as to whether there
is a substantial expansion or not. The issue is only as to how a period of
ten years is to be calculated, namely, whether those Assessment Years
in respect of which deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB
                                                                              B
was allowed are to be counted for the purpose of giving deduction under
Section 80-IC.
      14. Thus, we are of the opinion that it was wrong on the part of
the AO not to allow deduction to the assessee under Section 80-IC for
the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010. As a result, the judgment
of the High Court on this aspect is set aside and the appeals are             C
accordingly allowed.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeals allowed.

                                                                              D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H