TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect income to tax for A.Y. 2007-08. For the year under consideration the assessee has carried out the necessary entries to rectify the said mistake occurred in the financial year 2006-07 by crediting the said amount of ₹ 1,26,46,787/- to the respective expenditures' ledger accounts and correspondingly debiting the fixed capital account. Thus, as a result of the said rectification adjustment made in the books of accounts for the year under consideration the profit of the assessee was increased by the said amount in comparison to the real profit of the year. Therefore, the assessee in computation of income for the assessment year under consideration has deducted the said amount to bring the income at the correct amount. We find that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 2. Ground No.1 is regarding restricting the claim of resolution under section 10B by setting off of the loss of non eligible undertaking against the profits of eligible undertaking. 3. We have heard the Ld. D.R. as well as the Ld. A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this is a recurring issue and this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee. For the A.Y. 2007-08 the Tribunal has considered an identical issue vide order dated 28.09.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(Appeals) directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 1013 from the income of the assessee before set off of brought forward business losses and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. 4. We further note that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of this Tribunal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.02.13 whereby the order of this Tribunal has been confirmed. Following the earlier order of this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 5. The ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of the deduction under section 10B by not allowing the assessee to reduce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he accounts for the year ended 31.03.08. Correspondingly, the same amount was reduced from the net profit while computing the income for the A.Y. 2008-09. The AO has not accepted this explanation of the assessee as to how the capital expenditure for A.Y. 2007-08 can become the revenue expenditure in the A.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the said claim of deduction of ₹ 1,26,46,787/- and the deduction under section 10B was revised. 6. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the explanation of the assessee that the said amount was not reduced from the profits of the A.Y. 2007-08 and accordingly in the year under consideration it was a rectification and consequential entry carried out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the financial year 2006-07 by crediting the said amount of ₹ 1,26,46,787/- to the respective expenditures' ledger accounts and correspondingly debiting the fixed capital account. Thus, as a result of the said rectification adjustment made in the books of accounts for the year under consideration the profit of the assessee was increased by the said amount in comparison to the real profit of the year. Therefore, the assessee in computation of income for the assessment year under consideration has deducted the said amount to bring the income at the correct amount. We find that if the income for the year under consideration is not correctly computed in the statement of income it would have resulted in double taxation because the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
