TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s 80IA without setting off the losses on notional basis qua disallowance made in the course of ‘regular’ assessment - Held that:- CIT(A) has followed the decision of hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court] in observing that losses of earlier year prior to initial assessment year (first year of claim) which had already been set off cannot be set off once again against the profits of eligible business in determining the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In this manner, the disallowance/addition stands deleted. In our view, once the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has decided this substantial question of law, there is no reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds raised by the appellant/Revenue makes it clear that it is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting disallowances/additions of ₹ 4,77,892/- regarding repair and maintenance of building, ₹ 97,04,250/- relating to development charges of raw material storage yard and ₹ 48,95,792/- pertaining to filling, levelling and development of safety area-III made by the Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 22.12.2008. It contends that the lower appellate authority ought to have affirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer. 3. On this, the assessee replies that the CIT(A) has merely followed the order of the tribunal pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 qua the very grounds in its own case. 4. The assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has followed the order of the tribunal for assessment year 2004-05 to delete the aforesaid additions. This leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 6. We have heard both parties and gone through the case file. The only contention advanced by the Revenue is that since the expenses are capital in nature, the CIT(A) ought not have deleted the same by following the order of the tribunal (supra) dated 10.7.2009. Per Revenue, its appeal is pending before the hon'ble jurisdictional high court. In our view, once the tribunal has deleted the very additions, this argument of the Revenue does not form a justifiable ground for us to adopt a different approach in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we upholding the findings of the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 340 ITR 477 in observing that losses of earlier year prior to initial assessment year (first year of claim) which had already been set off cannot be set off once again against the profits of eligible business in determining the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In this manner, the disallowance/addition stands deleted. 11. Before us, the only contention of the Revenue in the absence of any distinguishing features is that its special leave petition against the decision of the jurisdictional high courts stands admitted in the apex court. In our view, once the hon'ble jurisdictional high court has decided this substantial questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
