9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of textile machinery. It filed its return of income for the assessment year under appeal, admitting income of ₹ 90,63,83,788/-. Initially the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessment was completed under section 143(3). 3. In the relevant period, another company by name M/s. Jeetstex Engineering Ltd. (JEL) was merged with the assessee-company in pursuance of the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). As a result of the merger, the assessee-company claimed set off of unabsorbed losses of JEL, totaling to ₹ 58,41,21,150/-. The above amount is made up of unabsorbed depreciation loss and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the circumstances of the case and in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the withdrawal of Circular No.576 by the CBDT, by a later Circular, cannot make the contents of earlier Circular, as contrary to the provisions of the Act, to adversely impact the case of the appellant, in any manner, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) is not correct in rejecting the arguments, that BIFR has overriding power over any authority, especially, the authority governing the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. 5. The learned CIT(A) has clearly erred in holding that AAIFR had not made specific mention that the nodal autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this Bench of the Tribunal passed in assessee s own case in ITA No.990(Mds)/2008 dated 8th August, 2008. In that case the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee that the loss should be permitted to be set off in view of the order of BIFR, even though there may be technical violations of the provisions of law stated in the Income-tax Act. But we find that the facts considered by the Tribunal in the said order are different from the facts of the present case and as such the order of the coordinate Bench is not applicable to the present case in hand. 8. In the present case we find that the dispute is not on the question whether the ruling given by BIFR is binding on everybody including the Income-tax Department or not. The q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
