9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of carry forward of losses. Further, we find there is no clarity as to the outcome of appeal by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the hands of Kirloskar Oil Ltd. who is the owner of the unit before demerger. In this case, assessee acquired windmill undertaking from the Kirloskar Oil Ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 is the initial assessment year in the hands of Kirloskar Oil Ltd. Hence, the A.Y. 2010-11 is the 2nd year in the hands of the assessee. Otherwise, there is no clarity in the orders of the AO on the amount of loss validly quantified in the hands of undertaking at the time of demerger to the assessee. Therefore, there is requirement of basic details on the said issue qua the figures of losses and profits over the years of the undertaking. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome declaring total income of ₹ 13,99,64,208/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed declaring total income of ₹ 14,71,45,097/-. In the assessment, the AO made certain disallowances viz., (1) Disallowance u/s.14A amounting to ₹ 1,41,23,169/-; (2) Disallowance of unexplained expenses amounting to ₹ 83,02,973/-; and (3) Disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA amounting to ₹ 3,18,33,046/-. Thus, in effect, the AO assessed the total income at ₹ 20,14,04,290/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the assessee remained unsuccessful before the First Appellate Authority. Now, against the order of First Appellate Authority, the assessee has come up in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction of ₹ 3,18,33,046/- u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. In the First Appellate proceedings, relying on the Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Microlabs Ltd. Vs. ACIT 230 Taxman 647, CIT(A) confirmed the decision of the AO on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 6. Before us, on this issue, Ld. AR submitted the manner of quantifying the allowable deduction u/s.80IA(4) is not in tune with the settled ratio of the binding judgments. Assessee objected to the manner of carry forward of losses notionally to eat away the profit of the year. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hercules Hoists Ltd where the Hon ble Court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Para No.7.11 and 7.12 of his order and confirmed the order of AO relying on the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Microlabs Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) 8.1 Assessee contested the same holding that the provisions of section 80IA(4) and 80IA(5) allows the computation on standalone basis. If the conclusions of the AO is considered favourably, it defeats the purpose of provisions of section 80IA(4) and 80IA(5) read with umpteen decisions on this subject including the Tribunal s decision in the case of Poonawala Estate Stud Agro Farm (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 136 TTJ 236 (Pune). 8.2 We find that there is no dispute on the fact that the assessment year 2009-10 is the initial assessment year in the hands of Kirloskar Oil Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
