9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10A before computing the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation without appreciating that after the amendment, Sec 10A/10B has become "Deduction" and not "Exemption" and the income of the assessee has to be computed as per the Computation of income as defined in Sec 2(45) of the Act." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/sl0A before computing the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation ignoring that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Himatasingike Seide Ltd reported in 286 ITR 255(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation by placing reliance upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Black & Veatch Consulting P Ltd 20 Taxman.com 727(Bom) ignoring the fact that the department has not accepted the ratio laid down in the said case." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of Information Technology Enabled Content Processing & Data Management Services, filed its return of income for relevant AY on 28.09.2010. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10A in respect of Mumbai unit of Rs. 9,16,57,358/- and Chennai Unit at Rs. 11,34,68,460/- without setting off of brought forward business losses of Rs. 16035036/- for AY 2005-06 and unabsorbed deprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht 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) Ltd., ((2012) 208 Taxman 144)". Further the impugned order also placed reliance upon its own decision in the case of "Ganesh Polychem Ltd. Vs. ITO" decided in ITA NO.8515/Mum/2010 on 10 August 2012 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 following the decision of this Court in Black & Veatch Consulting(P) Ltd. (supra). 3. The Revenue had carried the decision of the Tribunal in "Ganesh Polychem Ltd. Vs. ITO" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed accordingly. Ordered accordingly." 5. We find that the decision of Karnataka High Court in Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) which was undisturbed by the Apex Court was in respect 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 off the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 provided for an exemption in respect of profits and gains derived from export by 100% Export Oriented Undertakings and now it provides for deduction of profits and gains derived from a 100% Exported Oriented Units .. 6. In any view of the matter, the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
