9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , common administration and a common place of business - Decided in favor of the assessee - IT APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2006 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2011 - V.G. SABHAHIT AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. S. Parthasarathi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, J. This appeal is by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal which held that the losses from the hotel business be set off towards the franchise business of the assessee. 2. The assessee was earlier running a hotel in Brigade Road, Bangalore. The business of the restaurant was closed and the employees of the restaurant were retrenched. Thereafter, the assessee has been using the premises for various purposes like giving hall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 25FFF were disallowed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by relying on the earlier decisions as well as the statutory provisions of Sections 25F and 25FFF held that since the assessee is having the same business, he is entitled to deduction of Rs. 10,12,651/-. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the retrenchment compensation claimed by the assesses for payment towards workmen in the closed business of hote ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplications filed by the appellant, it was expressly stated that it was true that "there was a common control and common management of the same Board of Directors" of the business of import and export. Thus, the unity of control and the other circumstances adverted to above show that there was dovetailing or interlacing between the business of import and the business of export carried on by the assessee and that they constitute the same business. 14. For these reasons, we set aside the orders passed by the CIT and hold that the appellant is entitled to set off the unabsorbed loss of the assessment year 1953-54 against the profits of the assessment years 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57. The appellant will get its costs of the appeals in one s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
