9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in law and on facts in holding that the brought forward loss u/s 72 and unabsorbed depreciation u/s 32(2) of the Act is to be set-off against the profits of eligible undertaking before working out the quantum of exemption u/s 10A of the Act. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the applicant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee submitted as under:- "The notice refers to the earlier order of ACIT, Circle 12(4), Bangalore u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. We are of the opinion that there was no error in the earlier order and this was done in accordance with the law. We wish to bring to your kind notice, the contents of the provisions of Section 10A and 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 supporting the order of the ACIT. Therefore we are requesting your good office to cancel proceedings and accept the order of the ACIT u/s 143(3)." 5. The ld. CIT after considering the submissions of the assessee was of the view that the assessment order dated 14.12.2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions, the ld. CIT(DR) strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that in the aforesaid case of CIT, LTU v. M/s. Intellinet Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (surpa), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court considered the following substantial question of law : (ii) "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the deduction under Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act during the current assessment year has to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed losses and the depreciation from earlier assessment year or current assessment year either in the case of non-STP units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t unabsorbed brought forward business loss u/s. 72 and unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) of the Income-tax Act is not to be set off against the profits of eligible undertaking before working out the quantum of exemption u/s. 10A of the Act. Since, in the present case, the view taken by the AO was in consonance with the view taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case of CIT, LTU v. M/s. Intellinet Technologies India Private Limited (supra), therefore it cannot be said that the assessment order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the AO was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We therefore, by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove think it appropriate to set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
