TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Mukund Bakshi A.R. For the Respondent : Shri K.C. Mathews, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 30.07.2010 for A.Y. 2006-07. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business manufacturing of fiberglass reinforced articles and chemicals. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 06-07 on 16.02.2007 showing loss of Rs. 22,64,390/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 29.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had reduced the profit of Rs. 4,09,99,868/- being the profit of EOU unit from the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. A.O also noticed that the return of income was not filed within the time prescribed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Assessee was therefore asked to justify its claim of adjustment of profit of unit under section 10B of the Act. The Assessee interalia submitted that the amount of profit of EOU Units is to be calculated with reference to book profits u/s 115 JB and not as per the regular provisions of the Act and also relied on the circulars and various decisions. The submissions of the Assessee was not found acceptable to the A.O. A.O relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Ajanta Pharma Limited) holds the fort. In my humble view thus the AO was justified in not' allowing the profit of EOU of Rs. 4,09,99,868/- computed by taking per book profits as the base out of the income under section 115JB. The other plea regarding filing of return beyond time has thus become infructuous. Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 6. Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that CIT(A) while disallowing the claim of the Assessee had relied on the decision in the case of Ajanta Pharma (supra). He further submitted that the aforesaid decision has been reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore the Assessee is eligible for deduction. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT 327 ITR 305. We also find that CIT(A) did not decided the issue with respect to availability of deduction when the return of income has been filed beyond the due date as according to CIT(A), the issue was infructuous. We are therefore of the view that in view of the Hon ble Special Bench decision the Tribunal in the case of Saffire Garments vs. ITO (supra) and the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma (supra) the matter needs re-examination. We therefore remit the issue back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in the light of the foregoing. Needless to state that CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties before deciding the issue. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
