9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our considered view, since the issue is covered in favour of the appellant and considering the fact that the similar fact was decided in favour of the appellant by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai [ 2012 (12) TMI 522 - ITAT CHENNAI] which is the appellant's own case relating to the assessment year 2007-08 we are inclined to answer the appeal in favour of the appellant. - Honourable Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar And Honourable Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Appellant : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For the Respondent : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT C. SARAVANAN, J. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of the assessee and has upheld the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the brought forward depreciation has to be adjusted against the profits of the EOU before computing the exemption allowable u/s. 10B. The provisions of Section 10A are pari materia with the provisions of Section 10B of the Act. We find that as far as unabsorbed depreciation is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s.Himatsingka Seide Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra), has up-held the findings of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and as such, un-absorbed depreciation has to be set-off before computing the exemption allowable u/s. 10A. In respect of set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igible undertaking (like the Assessee) under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI of the Act. 28. Here is the case in hand, the total income was first arrived at by the Revenue through the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order by computing the total income by way of brought forward or carry forward the depreciation allowance of the earlier Assessment years and set off the unabsorbed depreciation first and making the return Nil, thereby leaving the Assessee in a position where it could not claim an deduction under Section 10B as there was no income after set off of carry forward depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. 29. This method of computing the income in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the applicability of Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sub Clause (2) to Section 10B of the Act, the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is proper. In view of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.05.2008 in I.T.A.No.2255/Mds/06 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.10.2018 in Tax Case Appeal No.1916 of 2008, the assessee Company would be entitled to deduction under Section 10A and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not correct. Since the order passed under Section 263 itself has been set aside, the cause of action for reassessment does not survive. 4. Mr.R.Sivar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
