9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d facts of the case. 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of claim on deduction u/s.801A of Rs. 39,62,582/-. 2.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the initial assessment year purpose of sec.801A(5) would be year in which the assessee set up the wind mills. 2.3. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the losses prior to assessment year 2008-09 would not enter into the computation of eligible profits. 2.4. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of earlier years, there would be no profits on which the assessee may be entitled to claim deduction u/s.801A. 2.5. It is submitted that the CIT(A)'s relied upon order of Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s.Velayu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efined under the provisions. It is to be noted that initial assessment year employed in sub-s (5) is different from the words ''beginning from the year'' referred to in sub-s(2). Important factors are to be noted in sub-s(5) and they are as under: (1)it starts with non obstante clause which means it overrides all the provisions of the Act and other provisions are to be ignored; (2) it is for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction; (3) for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year ; (4) It is a deeming provision; (5) fiction created that the eligible business is the only source of income; and (6) during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and every subsequent assessment year. Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss of the eligible undertakings and the same were already absorbed in the earlier years. There is a positive profit during the relevant year. Therefore, loss in the year earlier to initial assessment year already absorbed against the profit of other business cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profit of the eligible business as no such mandate is provided in S. 80-IA(5) - CIT vs. TTK Pharma Ltd (Tax Case (Appeal ) No.298 of 2004, dt. 23rd Dec., 2009) Followed; CIT vs. Mewar Oil & General Mills Ltd (2004) 186 CTR (Raj) 141; (2004) 271 ITR 311 (Raj) concurred with; Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd vs. Asst. CIT (2008) 114 TTJ (Chennai) 532: (2008) 3 DTR (Chennai) (Trib) 477 affirmed''. 4. Accordingly, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
