9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2004 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2010 - PRABHA SRIDEVAN MRS., JANARTHANA RAJA P. P. S. JJ. K. Subramaniam for M/s. Pushya Sitaraman, J. Naresh Kumar and T. Ravikumar for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P. P. S. Janarthana Raja J.- The present appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, in I. T. A. No. 205/Mds/ 1996, against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, "B" Bench. When the above matter came up for hearing this court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the present appeal. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and also submitted that the Assessing Officer correctly set off the unabsorbed depreciation, while computing the relief under section 80HHC. Therefore the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside. 5. In spite of notice served on the respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation. 6. Heard the counsel and perused the documents and records. It is seen that section 34A of the Income-tax Act restricts on unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance for limited period, in case of certain domestic companies. Section 34A was introd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the domestic company." 7. From a reading of the above clause it is clear that the set off unabsorbed income should be restricted to the extent of two-thirds, the Commissioner of Income-tax as well as the Appellate Tribunal correctly followed the above provision. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the finding is given based on materials. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is in conformity with law and there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and the same warrants no interference. The learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to give us any fresh material evidence or any compelling reasons to take a contrary view than the one taken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
