Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und that however, it will not deprive the authority of the Tribunal to entertain additional ground or alternative ground. Therefore, when the assessee is eligible for alternative claim u/s 10A, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. Setting off of losses of non 10B unit against profits of 10B unit - Held that:- The Special Bench of this Tribunal in Scientific Atlanda Tec P. Ltd.(2010 (2) TMI 658 - ITAT, CHENNAI) found that the brought forward losses and depreciation need not be set off for computing deduction u/s 10B of the Act. - Decided in favour of assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai, dated 17.3.2014, and pertain to assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in both the appeals, we heard them together and dispose of the same by this common order. 2. The first ground of appeal is with regard to claim of the assessee u/s 10B of the Act. 3. Shri N. Madhavan, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee made a claim u/s 10B of the Act in the return of income. The Assessing Officer found that no certificate was produced from the Board of Approval for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. However, the CIT(A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claim u/s 10A of the Act. The only contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee cannot make a claim unless the same was made in the return of income. We have gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Goetze (India) Ltd (supra). The Apex Court found that for the purpose of making a claim, the same has to be made in the return of income. In the very same judgment, the Apex Court found that however, it will not deprive the authority of the Tribunal to entertain additional ground or alternative ground. Therefore, when the assessee is eligible for alternative claim u/s 10A, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have also gone through the order of this Tribunal in Sword Global (I) P. Ltd. (supra). This decision was delivered by a Division Bench of this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal has to prefer a Larger Bench decision in the case of Scientific Atlanda Tec P. Ltd(supra). Since the CIT(A) has followed the decision of Larger Bench, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 10. The next issue is with regard to exclusion of foreign travel and communication expenses from the export turnover. 11. Shri N. Madhavan, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer excluded the foreign travel and communication expenses from the export turnover. However, on appeal by the assessee, the CI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el submitted that Rule 8D was incorporated in the Statute from assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, Rule 8D is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the expenditure relating to exempted income. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s Simpson Co. Ltd vs The Dy. CIT, Tax Case (Appeal) No.2621 of 2006 dated 15.10.2012, the ld. Counsel submitted that on identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Madras High Court disallowed 2% of the dividend income. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submitted that 2% of the dividend income may be disallowed instead of 10% disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 17. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates