9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wind mill activity. Also see Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court] When the assessee exercising the option, only the losses of the year beginning from the initial A. Y. are to be brought forward and not the losses of earlier year which have been already set off against the other income of the assessee. The revenue cannot notionally bring forward any loss of earlier years which has already been set off against any other income of the assessee and set off the same against the current income of the eligible business. We thus set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the A. O to allow the claimed deduction u/s. 80IA without bringing the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issue involved in the present appeal is interpretation of the initial assessment year for the purposes of claiming the deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act. Identical grounds were raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal in respect of assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 in assessee s own case. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and inter-alia engaged in the manufacturing of automobile components. The assessee had filed its return of income on 12.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 21,64,98,057/-. The assessee claimed the deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act of ₹ 55,07,530/-. In the opinion of the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business of generation of power and hence, assessee is not eligible for deduction in view of provisions of Sec. 80IA(5) of the Act. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer the adjustment of losses for earlier years has to be made as per provisions of Sec. 80IA(5) of the Act, which is a non-obstane clause having overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. He accordingly disallowed the impugned deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act. 6. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned action of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the identical issue has been decided in favour of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Serum International Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-6 ITA Nos. 290 to 292/PN/2010 dated 20-09-2011. 6. In the case of Serum International Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal has held as under: 13. Having been considered the above submissions, we find that the issue raised in Ground No. 1 as to what would be the initial A.Y for the purposes of Section 80IA(5) of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawalla Stud and Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra). In that case after discussing the issue in detail, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the initial 'A. Y' for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s. 80IA was the first year in which the assessee claimed the ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in that decision has also referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (Supra) and the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goldman Shares Finance (P) Ltd. (Supra). There is no dispute that even a decision of nonjurisdictional High Court is a binding precedent for the Tribunal until a contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court. In this regard, we find strength from the recent decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Valson Dyeing, Bleaching and Printing Works (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to hold in a case of excise matter that Tribunal is bound by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the A. O to allow the claimed deduction u/s. 80IA without bringing the notionally brought forward any loss or depreciation of earlier years which has already been set off against other income of the assessee. The decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prima Paper Engineering P. Ltd. Vs. I TO (Supra) cited by the Ld. DR is also not helpful to the revenue since firstly the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) on the issue was not cited before the Bench and secondly the Id. AR fairly agreed that the issue raised was covered against the assessee by the decision of Special Bench in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
