9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court - The issue is restored for fresh adjudication. - ITA No. 100/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2013 - Sh. I. P. Bansal And Rajendra, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Satish R. Modi For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Jain ORDER Per Rajendra, AM: Challenging the order dated 25. 10. 2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai, assessee-company has raised following Grounds of Appeal: GROUND NO. 1 The Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the order passed by the learned ACIT, Mumbai, under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since it is passed without a proper consideration and appraisal of the facts of the case. An incorrect and improper order has been passed without considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of hearing before us, Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee did not press ground no. 1, 2 and 4. Therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed. Ground no. 3, the only effective ground is about deduction claimed u/s. 10A of the Act and the working made under the said section. Assessee-company had claimed deduction of Rs. 46. 90 lacs u/s. 10A for the first time during the year under consideration. It was submitted that the assessee had not opted to claim the deduction because of loss in earlier years. AO found that it had adjusted the loss derived from the 10A unit against the other income, that during the year it had not adjusted 10A profits against the income of the other units. Referring to the decision of special bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant head. He further referred to the order of the special bench of Chennai delivered in the case of Scientific Atlanta India(ITA No. 536/MDS/2007- 05. 02. 2010). With regard to the alternative submission of the assessee, about method of allocation of expenses between the eligible/non-eligible unit based on the turn-over, he held that it was academic in nature, He did not adjudicated the issue. 2. 2. Before us, AR submitted that issue under consideration was decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Galaxy Surfactants Ltd (343 ITR 108), that FAA did not adjudicate the issue of available deduction u/s. 10A, that assessee was entitled to deduction is claimed by it in full. Departmental Representative(DR) submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
