2018 (2) TMI 2079 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 10A - Tribunal directing AO to recomputed the deduction u/s 10A without reducing/ setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses - HELD THAT - Revenue, very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue. This he states by the decision of this Court in the Respondent-Assessee's case for the assessment year 2006-07 reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Black Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT - In the above view, question 1 as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Delayed employee share of provident fund - whether Tribunal is correct in-holding that employee share of provident fund not deposited within the period provided under the PF Act is covered under the provisions of Section 43B ? - HELD THAT - Mr. Suresh Kumar very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent-Assessee's case by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income tax, (central), Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In the above view, question 2 as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment year 2007-08.
2. Interpretation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and business losses.
3. Employee share of provident fund not deposited within the specified period under the PF Act and its treatment under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue raised questions of law for consideration. However, the learned Counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that the issues raised were already decided against the Revenue in previous cases. Referring to the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., it was concluded that the questions did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal on this issue was not entertained, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

Issue 2:
The first question raised related to the computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act without reducing unabsorbed depreciation and business losses. The Counsel for the Revenue conceded that the issue had been settled against the Revenue in previous cases. Citing the decision in Commissioner of Income tax, Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., it was established that the question did not present a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision on this matter was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issue 3:
The second question pertained to whether the employee share of provident fund not deposited within the specified period under the PF Act falls under the provisions of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Similar to the first issue, the Counsel for the Revenue recognized that the matter had been resolved in favor of the Respondent-Assessee in a previous case. Referring to the decision in Commissioner of Income tax, Pune Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd., it was concluded that this question also did not give rise to a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Tribunal's ruling on this matter was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the decisions rendered on each issue, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes.