9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year, the matter was remitted back to the AO. While re-computing the deduction, the Assessing Officer considered the profit earned from non-industrial activities and also did not deducted unabsorbed brought forward losses. It was to correct this mistake apparent on the record that Section 154 was invoked. Suffice to say that the issue dealt with by the 1 st Appellate Authority was not subject-matter of proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, rather 20% of the profit earned from industrial activities was considered and deduction was allowed. There is no perversity in the order passed. Question No. 1 is answered against the assessee. Deduction under Section 80-HH - Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Distribut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that unabsorbed brought forward loss are to be reduced from the profits of the current year for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s 80-HH. The facts of the case are that the assessment year involved is 1983-84. The assessment was finalised on 25.3.1986 and deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act of ₹ 1,18,346/- was allowed. Aggrieved of the assessment order, appeal was filed. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jalandhar [for short, 'CIT (A)'] vide order dated 22.1.1987 allowed the appeal with regard to the issue of deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act. The matter was sent to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction under Section 80-HH of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. While re-computing the deduction, the Assessing Officer considered the profit earned from nonindustrial activities and also did not deducted unabsorbed brought forward losses. It was to correct this mistake apparent on the record that Section 154 of the Act was invoked. Suffice to say that the issue dealt with by the 1 st Appellate Authority was not subject-matter of proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, rather 20% of the profit earned from industrial activities was considered and deduction was allowed. There is no perversity in the order passed. Question No. 1 is answered against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
