2015 (10) TMI 1500

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... losses of the assesse's Gurgaon 1OA unit against the profits of its other 1OA unit before computing deduction u/s.10A without appreciating that deduction u/s.10A is allowable out of Total Income of the assessee, which is to be computed after set-off of losses as per Chapter VI of the I.T. Act. "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of the losses of the assesse's Gurgaon 1OA unit with out appreciating that under section 10Adeduction is to be allowed from the total income and therefore the losses liable to be set-off against profits of the year and only unabsorbed losses remaining thereafter are eligible for carry forward." 2. During t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n respect of the Crab Stick Unit the assessee had suffered a loss of Rs. 1.33 crores. The Assessing Officer has observed that since the income of the unit was exempt from taxation, the loss of the unit could not have been set off against the normal business income. However, this was allowed by the assessment order and it is opined that the assessee's income to the extent of Rs. 1.33 crores has escaped assessment. 29. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has while reopening the assessment ex facie proceeded on the erroneous premise that section 10B is a provision in the nature of an exemption. Plainly, section 10B as it stands is not a provision in the nature of an ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th unit could be set off against the normal business income. In these circumstances, the basis on which the assessment is sought to be reopened is contrary to the plain language of section 10B." We further note that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has also taken the similar view in the case of CIT V/s Yokigawa India Ltd (2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn). Accordingly, in view of the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (supra), we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and hence dismiss the grounds taken by the revenue. Cross-Objection No.54/Mum/2014 5. In the cross-objection, the assessee has not raised any new issue but supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). In view of our .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X