9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 1992-93 in respect of its petrochemical unit for the purposes of claiming deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I. As in the present case, assessee company has prepared its Financial Statements on Consolidated Basis from which it has worked out unit-wise net profits and once such working is certified by the Auditors the net profit computation (unit-wise) could be placed before the AO who can find out whether such profit(s) is properly worked out and on that basis compute deduction under Section 80HH/80 - in favour of assessee by way of remand. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1679 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2012 - S.H. KAPADIA, MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ. ORDER This civil appeal filed by the Department relates to the assessment year 1992-93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3.1992 corresponding to assessment year 1992-93. As far as the present assessment proceedings are concerned, suffice it to state, that the AO while framing assessment, under Section 143(3) allowed deduction after examining and being satisfied with the unit-wise profit loss statement filed by BRPL. Subsequently, CIT, Shillong issued a show cause notice under Section 263 saying that the AO had allowed excess deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I. According to him, the net profit revealed in the audited Profit Loss Account for the assessment year 1992-93 was not supported by bifurcation of the profits amongst the said three units. That, the basis of allocation of profits amongst the three units by BRPL, as shown in the Computation of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim deduction under Sections 80HH and 80I". Against the said decision the assessee BRPL went in appeal. By the impugned judgment the order of the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court, hence this civil appeal is filed by the Department. At the outset, it may be stated that the impugned order of the High Court is cryptic. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the case to the High Court for de novo consideration. The High Court has relied upon its earlier judgment, which, in our view, is not applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. However, to put an end to the litigation, we are of the view, that though neither Section 80HH nor Section 80I (as it then stood) statutorily obliged BRPL to maintain its accounts unit-wise a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
