TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the assessee, upon the aforesaid circular is unpersuasive. Decided in favour of the Revenue. Set off of the loss claimed by the Bangalore Unit from the profit of the Mumbai Unit - the loss making unit claimed benefit under Section 10A whereas the Mumbai Unit was not an eligible unit - Decided in favour of the Revenue as relying on CIT vs. Ke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, against the profits of the other units for the relevant year i.e. Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04. 3. This Court notices that the previous judgements of two Division Benches in CIT vs. Tei Tecnologies Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 36 and CIT vs. Kei Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 386/2013) decided on 13.03.2015 have accepted the revenue s decision that such set off is impe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in accordance with the provision of Chapter VI of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various sources, i.e. eligible and ineligible units, under the same head are aggregated in accordance with the provisions of section 70 of the Act. Thereafter, the income from one head is aggregated with the income or loss of the other head in accordance with the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ineligible unit, it shall be carried forward and may be set off against the profits of eligible unit or ineligible unit as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act. 6. The provisions of Chapter IV and Chapter VI shall also apply in computing the income for the purpose of deduction under section 10AA and 10BA of the Act subject to the conditions specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set off of the loss claimed by the Bangalore Unit from the profit of the Mumbai Unit, overlooking that the loss making unit claimed benefit under Section 10A whereas the Mumbai Unit was not an eligible unit. 2. The above question is answered by this Court in its judgment in CIT vs. Kei Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 386/2013) decided on 13.03.2015. 3. Following the decision, the question is answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
