TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of M/s. Safran Aerospace India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 773 - ITAT BANGALORE] has also held the issue in favour of the Assessee upholding the principles applied by the AO in the course of the original assessment in his order u/s 143(3) dt. 30.11.2012. Therefore, the order passed by the AO is by following one of the two possible views and same cannot be held to be erroneous which calls for invocation of the powers of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act. In the circumstances, the order passed u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax stands set aside. - ITA NO. 250/PNJ/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2015 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, was liable to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Panaji Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Safran Aerospace India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1261/Bang/2010 dt. 31.12.2014 wherein in para 4.5 it has been held as follows : 4.5 The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd (supra) was considering the case of an assessee which was in the business of manufacture and trading of process controlled instruments and it had filed return of income declaring loss. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the AO had observed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10A for its STPI unit before set off of brought forward losses and depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fully justified in setting aside the said assessment order and granting the benefit of sec.10A to the assessee. Thus, the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. Thus, there are two judgments of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court contrary to each other. When there are two judgments of the very same High Court by benches of equal strength, then the later judgment of the High Court has to be followed as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Bhika Ram and others vs. UOI reported in 238 ITR 113. The decision of the High Court in the case of Himatsingike Siede (supra) is dated 4th August 2006 whereas the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd.(supra) is dated 9th August, 2011. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment u/s 143(3) he was bound by the decision of the jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka. Further, a perusal of the circular issued by CBDT dt. 16.7.2013 shows that the opening words are as follows : It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the provisions of 10A/10AA/10B/10BA of the Income-tax Act, with regard to applicability of Chapter IV of the Act and set off and carry forward of losses, are being interpreted differently by the Officers of the Department as well as by different High Courts. Clearly, there are different interpretations as has been admitted by the CBDT. The issue clearly is a debatable one. The AO has also followed the principles laid down by the jurisdiction High Court of Karnataka. Following the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
