9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sriraman JUDGMENT 1. This tax case appeal has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Chennai, dated June 26, 2015 (Deputy CIT v. Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd. [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 51 (Mad)), made in I. T. A. No. 1108/Mds./2015. 2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: 2. 1 The assessee had filed its return, for the assessment year 2006-07, declaring a taxable income of ₹ 36,61,15,170. The case was taken up for scrutiny and an order was passed, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), on December 21, 2009, making a total addition of ₹ 6,90,458. The case was reopened, under section 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II, the Department had preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in I. T. A. No. 1108/Mds./2015. The Tribunal, by its order, dated June 26, 2015, had dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, following the decision of this court, in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 477 (Mad) ; [2010] 231 CTR (Mad) 368. 2.5 Challenging the order of the Tribunal, dated June 26, 2015, the Department has filed the present appeal, before this court, under section 260A of the Act, raising the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at as per section 80-IA(5) the undertaking eligible for deduction under section 80-IA should be treated as only source of income for computing the quantum of deduction. E. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills when the same is in appeal before the hon'ble Supreme Court. F. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have observed that since sub-section (5) of section 80-IA starts with a non-obstante clause, the restriction put in sub-section (5) will prevail and deduction under section 80-IA has to be restricted accordingly. G. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have appreciated that as per provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
