9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the Hon ble High Court. Accordingly, the Ld. Principal CIT was not justified in refusing to follow the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. In any case, the decision rendered by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. [ 2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] has since been upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd [ 2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT ] Hence, the deduction u/s 10B should be allowed without setting off of brought forward losses for the year under consideration. Accordingly, this reasoning od Ld. Principal CIT would fail. R D activity carried out by the assessee in biotechnology services would not qualify as computer software within the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee and both relate to the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal numbered as 941/Bang/2016 relates to appeal filed by the assessee challenging the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. Other appeal relates to the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee is challenging the validity of the revision order. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking R D activity in biotechnology. The assessment in the hands of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss is not required for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. We notice that the Ld. Principal CIT did not follow the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court by observing that the issue is still not reached finality as the matter is pending before Hon ble Supreme Court. It is a well settled proposition of law that all the authorities below the jurisdictional High Court have to necessarily follow the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court. Accordingly, the Ld. Principal CIT was not justified in refusing to follow the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court. In any case, the decision rendered by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra) has since been upheld by Hon ble Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f certain conditions and under the provision of Act, then without withdrawing or setting aside the relief granted for the first assessment year in which claim was made and accepted, the AO cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent assessment years. This ratio was laid down in the context of section 10A and the same, in our view, can be applied to sec.10B also. Accordingly, once there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case from the earlier years from the initial year when the claim has been accepted, then the deduction cannot be disallowed or denied in the subsequent years of claim. In the instant case, the eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 10B of the Act would have been examined in the first year, i.e., in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
