TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book profits u/s 115 JB - Held that:- We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the A.O. has not discussed the above issue at all in the assessment order. However, the ld. CIT(A) without examining the relevant entries in the books of accounts and the P&L account has upheld the order of the A.O. Since the order passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account is not a speaking order inasmuch as it requires examination of facts, therefore, in the interest of justice, we consider it fair and reasonable that the matter should go back to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the order passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the A.O. to decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. observed that the assessee has two manufacturing units i.e. one at Wapi and another at Dombivli. The A.O. further noted that as per computation of income, the assessee has computed business income of ₹ 3,81,87,055/- and claimed deduction of ₹ 3,25,58,019/- u/s 10B, resulting into the balance sum of income of ₹ 56,29,036/- which has been set off against brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2004-05. The A.O. also observed that the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the Act from total income before setting off brought forward losses was not correct, hence, the A.O. asked the assessee to justify its claim. In response to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal the ld. CIT(A) following the decision in Sword Global (I) P. Ltd. vs. ITO 306 ITR (A.T.) 286 (Chennai), ITAT decision in ACIT vs. Jewellery Solutions Int. Pvt. Ltd. 28 SOT 405 and the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Himatsingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255 upheld the views of the A.O. in making the adjustment of brought forward before allowing deduction u/s 10A/10B of the Act. 7. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that this issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in Capgemini India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 141 TTJ (Mumbai) (UO) 33, the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Another vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2012) 341 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.1 are against the non-allowance of provision of fringe benefit tax ₹ 1,28,000/- from the book profits u/s 115 JB of the Act. 12. Brief facts of the above issue as observed and held by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of his order are as under:- From the perusal of the order, I find that the A.O. has not discussed the issue in assessment order. Before me it was claimed that same is covered by Cir. No. 8/2005 dated 29-08-2005. However, the said circular talks about fringe benefit tax paid and not about the provision for FBT tax. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the A.O. and contention of the appellant is therefore rejected. 13. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee while reiterating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e added to the book profits of the assessee. He, therefore, submits that the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 14. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A). 15. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the A.O. has not discussed the above issue at all in the assessment order. However, the ld. CIT(A) without examining the relevant entries in the books of accounts and the P L account has upheld the order of the A.O. Since the order passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account is not a speaking order ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
