TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 2009-10 against order of ld. CIT(A) dated 14.08.2012 on following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10AA without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation without appreciating that in view of the amendment w.e.f. 1.4.2001, S.10A/10B provides for "deduction" and not "exemption" and hence, the income of the assessee has to be computed as stipulated in S 2 (45) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10AA without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation by placing reliance upon the decision of Karnata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so shown an amount of Rs.13,31,461/- as income under the head "Income from Other Sources". The assessee has set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.17,16,763/- against the income of Rs.13,31,461/-. AO asked the assessee as to why the unabsorbed depreciation has not been set off against the business income. The assessee has objected to the query raised by AO and relied on the Form No.ITR-6 and stated that allowance u/s 10A has to be given before setting off brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The AO did not find favour with the assessee's explanation and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd V/s DCIT 1(1) dated 1.4.2010 observed that after amendment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 10A deduction has to be computed before computing the gross total income. Therefore, brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against the total income while computing the deduction u/s 10A. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee. Being aggrieved, the department is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. DR contended the facts of the case and relied on the order of AO. On the contrary the ld. AR supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, submissions of ld. Representatives of both the parties and gone through the case laws relied upon by the respective parties. On perusal of the record, we find that the issue raised in this appeal stands covered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
