9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V CIT (2009 - TMI - 204204 - KERALA HIGH COURT), held that deduction u/s 80HHC has to be calculated after deduction of the relief claimed u/s 80IA. Appeal of assessee rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 148 by way of issue of notice dated 18.03.2010, which was served on the assessee on 19.3.2000. The reasons recorded are reproduced hereunder : "The assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2003 at a return income of Rs.2,96,59,322/-. The case was assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.2.2006 at an assessed income of Rs.4,35,32,840/- . A test check of the assessment records of the case has revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80IB as well as Section 80HHC. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB amounting to Rs.78,82,237/- But while computing deduction u/s 80HHC, the deduction claimed u/s 80IB has not been deducted from the prof its and gains of business. Section 80IA(9) of income Tax,1961 stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to believe by the AO in the matter. The claim made by the assessee is incorrect and contravenes the provisions of Section 80IA(9)/80IB(13) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is not the case of change of opinion as the assessee made wrong claim in contravention of the express provisions of Section 80IA(9)/80IB(13) of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of validity of issue of notice u/s 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 2 and 6, raised by the assessee are general in nature, hence, needs no separate adjudication. 7. In Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5, the assessee contended that the CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is dismissed." 8. The issue in question in these grounds of appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Friends Castings (P) Ltd. V CIT 238 CTR 307. The relevant question before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was " ( iv)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in terms of s. 80IA(9) of the Act where two deductions under Section 80HHC and 80IB of the Act are available, then the deduction computed under Section 80IB shall be reduced f rom the business prof its to compute deduction under s 80HHC on the resultant prof its ?" The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, after making reference to the Special Bench decision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly calculated the prof it under s. 80HHC at Rs. 9,32,480 against the claim as per audit report and ignoring the mode of calculation of prof it under s. 80HHC, that it is independent and nothing to do with s. 80IA. The plea of the assessee regarding the provisions of law is that s.80AB is clarificatory in nature and supersedes al l the provisions of chapter VI-A including s. 80IA(9) of the Act. 8.1 After going through the impugned orders, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. First appellate authority has decided the issue in dispute against the assessee by fol lowing the order of the Tribunal (SB) Chennai, in the case of Asstt. CIT V Rogini Garments (2007) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, we are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal , Special Bench 'C' New Delhi, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Thus, respectfully following the decision rendered by the Tribunal , Special Bench 'C' New Delhi, in the case of Asstt.CIT v Hindustan Mint. & Agro Products (P) Ltd. passed in ITA Nos. 1537, 1538 and 1539/Del/2007 (reported at (2009) 123 TTJ (Del ) (SB) 577 : (2009) 25 DTR (Del ) (SB) 73-Ed. ) for the assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 dt. 23rd June,2009, we dismiss ground Nos. 7( i) to 7( iii) and 8( i) to 8( ii) of the appeals of the assessee." 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to point out that the approach of the authorities below was cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
