Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1339 - HC - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 10A in respect of interest on fixed deposits and tax refund by holding it to be income under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' - Held that:- Revenue has not raised the issue before the Tribunal that as the appellant had not claimed in its Return of Income that interest on deposits is to be classified under the heads 'Profits & Gains of Business or profession' it could not now urge the same before the Appellate Authorities. On being specifically asked Mr. Pinto, the Revenue candidly states that from the reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is clear that such a contention was not raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus, question no.(a) does not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. This issue on merits stand concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) where it has been held that not raising an issue before the original authority would not bar the party from raising the issue before the Appellate Authority. Interest on deposit which the impugned order of the Tribunal holds is chargeable to tax under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' and consequently eligible for deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- When asked, Mr. Pinto fairly states that the issue of classification of interest on tax refund was not agitated before the Tribunal. We are of the view that the above issue of interest on tax refund not to be treated as interest on deposits was not agitated by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Thus this issue not arising from the order of the Tribunal, does not arise for our consideration. In any case we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed its decision rendered in the Assessee's case for A.Y. 2004-05 [2009 (6) TMI 677 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Mr. Pinto is unable to point out any distinguishable features in the present Appeal which would warrant our taking a different view from that having been taken in the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 200405. Moreover, nothing has been shown to us which would indicate that the Tribunal's order for the A.Y. 2004-05 has not been accepted by the Revenue. Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss for set-off against the current year's profit of the same 10A unit - Held that:- Issue stands covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT).
|