TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) and "Ganesh Polychem Ltd. Vs. ITO" [2012 (8) TMI 953 - ITAT MUMBAI ] against the Revenue. Tribunal was right in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit, the income of which is not eligible for deduction u/s.10B of the Act cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction u/s.10B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was justified in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed loss/ depreciation of the assessee's 10B unit was not liable for set off against the current year's profit of the same 10B unit ? 2. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent Assessee's appeal by following the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Black Veatch Consulting (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction u/s.10B of the Act ? This Court by order dated 25 February 2013 dismissed the Revenue's above appeal as it was agreed that the issue raised therein stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Black Veatch Consulting(P) Ltd.(supra). 4. Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue does not dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court in Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) which was undisturbed by the Apex Court was in resepct of Assessment Year 1994-95. Thus it dealt with the provisions of Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 which was admittedly different from Section 10B as in force during Assessment Year 2009-10 involved in this appeal. Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
