9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be applied while considering the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Thus, the issue was decided against the assessee. Ordinarily, therefore, we would reject such a question without any further discussion. Assessee, however, pointed out that different High Courts have taken different views on the topic. The Supreme Court has granted SLP and is in seizing of the controversy. Learned Judges of the Bench, who heard the appeals, were divided in their opinion each passing reasoned order. In view of this disagreement, the issue is now referred to the larger bench. These orders are reported in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Micro Labs Ltd. reported in [2015 (12) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT ]. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR S N. SOPARKAR, SR ADV WITH B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Leave to amend. 2. Tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following question of law: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to reallocate R D expenditure for the purpose of determining profits of new industrial undertaking u/s. 80IB of the Act? 3. To be herd with Tax Appeal No. 649 of 2016 and connected appeals. 4. We notice that the assessee had raised following additional questions for our consideration: (i) Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any further discussion. With respect to question Nos. 1and 2 also, counsel for the assessee candidly pointed out that such issues have been decided against the assessee by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 652 of 2015 in judgement dated 19.08.2016 making following observations: 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant assessee has contended that the tribunal has committed an error of law and facts in not allowing the reduction of book profit under Section 115 JB for brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation of amalgamating company (Pradeep Drug Company Limited) amounting to ₹ 3,39,12,399/. He has further contended that the view taken by the AO and other authorities are required to be reversed. 3. On the other hand, learned Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessee has made a wrong claim which was rightly rejected by the AO. Resultantly, we find no force in this ground of the Assessee, hence dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the order passed by the tribunal as quoted herein above confirming the order of the CIT (A), this Court does not deem it proper to interfere with the said view taken by the tribunal. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the tribunal and while adopting the said reasonings, this appeal stands dismissed and question is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. These questions are, therefore, also not entertained. 6. This leaves us with the sole surviving question of ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be re-agitated. If by the time this appeal is taken up for hearing, the decision of the Supreme Court is available. 7. In view of the binding judgement of this Court which squarely covers the issue, we are unable to accept either of the two suggestions. Today, insofar as this Court is concerned, the question is governed by the decision in case of Atul Intermediates. In absence of any extraordinary reasons, we are duty bound to follow the judgement. Such question is, therefore, rejected. 8. The last surviving suggestion of counsel for the assessee, however, needs to be accepted. He submitted that the certificate in terms of Section 261 of the Income Tax Act may be granted with respect to this question. Section 261 of the Act which pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
