9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act at Rs. 139,09,19,895/- as against 31,85,34,611/- allowed by the Assessing Officer both the issues. 2. The Ld. AR submits that both the issues are covered against the Revenue. In assessee's own case for the earlier years vide consolidated order dated 26/9/2016 passed by ITAT Delhi Bench being ITA No. 2283/DEL/2011. 3. The Ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer has recorded facts that the assessee do not have any documentary evidence as to how 25% of substances allowance paid by the assessee company. Thus, the Ld. DR submitted that the judgment in the earlier assessment year was on the basis of entire amount which was settled in the later years, therefore, the ITAT order will not be applicable in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts. We also concur with the reasons given that such subsistence allowance is supported by the evidence of the actual expenditure incurred for official purposes to the extent of 75% and for the balance 25%, employees have submitted a declaration of having spent in the said amount in the course of travel abroad. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the argument of the Ld. Departmental representative that 25% of expenditure has been claimed by the assessee without any evidence as employees have claimed such expenses from assessee by furnishing a declaration that this expenditure has been incurred by them. Reimbursement of expenses to the employees by employer on the basis of self-declaration for small amounts, for which it is difficult and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 7. As relates to assessee's appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that unobserved depreciation whether can be reduced from the income from other sources by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that unobserved depreciation can be set out with any income. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgment in case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa 341 ITR 385. The Ld. AR submitted that Section 10A deduction is in the form of disallowance only. The Ld. AR also relied upon the ITAT Delhi Bench order in case of Canam International (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 37 ITR (T) 38. 8. The Ld. DR quoted Section 32(2) and further stated that depreciation merged with next year for which Section 10A is claimed is not proper as depreciation automatically is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss incurred by the assessee under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" has to be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession carried on by such assessee. Therefore, as the profits and gains under Section 10A is not be included in the income of the assessee at all, the question of setting off the loss of the assessee of any profits and gains of business against such profits and gains of the undertaking would not arise. Similarly, as per section 72(2), unabsorbed business loss is to be first set off and thereafter unabsorbed depreciation treated as current year's depreciation under Section 32(2) is to be set off. As deduction under Section 10A has to be excluded from the total income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
