TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties resulting into loss in that ear and such deletion of the addition in that year is accepted by the Department. The assessment order in the present year is dated 21/11/2011, which is after less than 11 months of the order passed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 and nothing has been brought on record to show that the positive income assessed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 was converted into loss in turn resulting into availability of any brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation in the present year. Hence, the assessment order is clearly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this issue because the Assessing Officer has allowed brought forward business loss and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.493/LKW/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kushwaha, C. A. For The Respondent : Shri Vivek Mishra, C.I.T., D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. This is an assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT-II, Kanpur dated 10/07/2012 u/s 263 for assessment year 2009- 2010. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order passed by Ld CIT-II is erroneous, against the facts of the case, illegal and unjustifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT has grossly erred in concluding that the loss on sale of bonds units is a capital loss, which is factually/legally incorrect. The conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT is without any discussion and reasoning. 7. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in concluding that deduction claimed u/s 36 (1)(viia) debiting ₹ 25,04,746.09 to avoid the attention of the department towards the net increase of ₹ 164137293.10. The deduction claimed was legal and allowable to assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in taking the ground 4, which was under consideration in appeal filed before the CIT (A) Kanpur in the A.Y.2008-2009. 9. That the order of the Id commissioner of Income Tax II of being erroneous in law and on facts deserve to be vacated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e written questionnaire required the assessee to file details of loss on sale of investment and as per the details submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in its reply dated 11/10/2011, it is apparent from such details that this is capital loss against sales of bonds and it can be set off only against the income from capital gain and therefore, this loss has been wrongly allowed. 5.2 The third objection of learned CIT is that as per Schedule-5 to the balance sheet, subsidy reserve fund has been increased from ₹ 2,740.45 lac to ₹ 3176.45 lac and other provision has increased from 1188.04 lac to ₹ 3393.41 lac and in this manner, there is total increase in liability of ₹ 1641.37 lac but as per profit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation for set off in assessment year 2009-10 until and unless the addition made in assessment year 2008-09 is deleted by appellate authorities resulting into loss in that ear and such deletion of the addition in that year is accepted by the Department. The assessment order in the present year is dated 21/11/2011, which is after less than 11 months of the order passed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 and nothing has been brought on record to show that the positive income assessed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 was converted into loss in turn resulting into availability of any brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation in the present year. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
