TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the respondent-revenue. It is submitted by Mr. Vohra that the Assessing Officer has dealt with the objections preferred by the assessee on the basis of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer and Ors., [2003] 259 ITR 19 in an extremely laconic and cryptic manner, without adverting to proper factual matrix. Mr. Vohra has drawn ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons reads as follows: The assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction of ₹ 2,27,57,37,009/- u/s 10A and 10B in respect of two units. However, the loss of ₹ 50,75,39,374/- of third unit was not reduced from the profit of other two units. Thus the assessee has claimed excess exemption u/s. 10B of ₹ 50,72,19,040/-. This has resulted in over assessment of loss of ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, more so after expiry of four year which requires failure to make full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee. It is the submission of Mr. Vohra that the delineation by the assessing officer is laconic in this regard, inasmuch as there were three units, but exemption/deduction was claimed in respect of two units without considering the loss of the third unit and the same is reflectib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the same is also rejected as not well founded. To claim deduction on the basis of incorrect computation u/s 10B of the I.T. Act, itself constitutes failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for assessment.? We thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
