TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10A accepted. Thereafter, an application for giving effect to the order was filed in which brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss was allowed subsequently to set off the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. See The Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Versus Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokojawa India [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.5374/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For The Assessee : Shri Vishwas Mundhe,(DR) For The Department : K. Gopal ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Black Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd., ITAL No.1237 of 2011 in which reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., [325 IT 102 at para 24(2010)], without appreciation that in case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the issue was adjustment of losses of an eligible 1OB unit against other income, without setting off the said loss against the profits of other eligible EOUs, whereas in the present case, the unabsorbed depreciation and business losses brought forward from earlier years pertained to the eligible 10A unit itself and therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above ground be set aside and that of the ITO/ACIT/DCIT be restored. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case, are that the Assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2004 declaring the total loss to the tune of ₹ 3,06,255/- for the AY.2004-05. The return was filed along with audited copies of Profit and Loss Account, Balance-Sheet and Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB and u/s 10A. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 12.02.2005. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2), dated 27.10.2005 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 27.10.2005. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) 142(1) al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures Ltd. 4. Ld. representative of the Revenue has argued that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of the Assessee was not liable to be set-off earlier to the set off claim of the assessee s unit u/s.10A of the Act in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-10 Vs. Black Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1237 of 2011. It is also argued that in the earlier year the unit was not eligible u/s.10A of the Act, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against the law and facts and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the Ld. representative of the Assessee has relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question and also argued that the case of the assessee is fully covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and losses to be adjusted before allowing the deduction u/s 10A. On the other hand, the AR has submitted that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Black Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 72. It was further argued that as per decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramlal Babulal 148 CTR 643 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Omega Sports Radio Works 134 ITR 28, it was held that when the decision of jurisdictional high court is available, it is binding on the lower authorities to make rectification as per the decision of the court. From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nctionaries working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and once that is so, the order passed by the assessing authority by ignoring the opinion of this Court is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and thus the /TO was right in issuing a notice and passing an order of rectification. The Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the mistake in this case was not apparent on the face of the record in view of the conflicting view of the other High Courts.CIT vs. Vardhman Spinning (1:97) 139 CTR (P H) 322: (1997) 226 ITR 296 (P H) followed. Omega Sports Radio Works If there is a decision on a particular point of the High Court it is binding on the IT authorities in that state and merely because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
