9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again filed an appeal before the AAIFR and that certain interim orders are passed - the assessee's claim that it is a sick industrial company under SIC Act, 1985, has not been accepted by the concerned authority – there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. Non-treatment of Interest received and miscellaneous income – Not Credited to P&L A/C as business income - Held that:- The CIT(A') followed the order in the Assessment Year 2004-05 - the unabsorbed depreciation would get absorbed against 'income from other sources', and that unabsorbed business loss could not be absorbed during the year, as the assessee has computed a loss – Revenue could not point out that the requirements of S.72 are not fulfilled b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absorbed depreciation of Rs.19,55,1891/- of earlier years. 3. Against the returned income of Rs.'nil', the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,10,45,759/-. He computed book profits u/s 115 JB of the Act at Rs.2,08,93,431/-. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authority granted part relief. Aggrieved, both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us. 4. We have heard Mr.Umesh Gupta, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Sri R.S.Gill, Ld.C.I.T., D.R., on behalf of the Revenue. 5. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the papers on record as well as the orders of the authorities below and case laws cited, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is dismissed. 9. Ground no.2 is on the issue whether S.115 JB of the Act applies to the assessee. The assessee's claim is that Proviso (VII) of Sub Section 2 to S.115 JB applies to the assessee company, as it is a sick industrial company under sub section (1) of S.17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals') observed that the application of the assessee have been rejected by the BIFR at its hearing held on 20.1.2004. The assessee filed an appeal with AAIFR, which remanded the matter back to the BIFR. Subsequently the BIFR passed a detailed order rejecting the claim of the assessee on 15.5.2007. The assessee claimed that it has again filed an appeal before the AAIFR and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2011. The Tribunal held that, the unabsorbed depreciation would get absorbed against 'income from other sources', and that unabsorbed business loss could not be absorbed during the year, as the assessee has computed a loss. 13. The Ld.CIT, D.R. could not point out that the requirements of S.72 are not fulfilled by the assessee. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as the appeal of the Revenue, both are dismissed. 15. The Stay Application No.173/Del/2012 (In ITA 427/Chd./2011) for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed as 'infructuous'. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th July, 2013. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
