TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Karnavati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 920 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]. No circumstances are brought to our notice to say as to why the decisions of the Tribunal stated above and also the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court shall not be made applicable facts of the present case. We are convinced with the reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(A). MAT computation - calculating the income u/s 115JB - assessee had debited income from SEZ which is to the tune of ₹ 46,04,41,180/- besides not claiming deduction u/s 80 IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby reduced the book profit from ₹ 47,00,02,273/- to nil - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case it is permissible under law for the assessee to claim deduction under sub s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mic Zones. The assessee was also Co-developers in the said projects, namely DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, DLF Infocity Developers (Chennai) Ltd, DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., DLF Ltd. They also derived income from leasing and maintenance of these SEZs and has obtained from the Ministry of Commerce Industry to work as co-developer for running and maintenance of the SEZ projects. For the assessment year 2011-12 they have filed return of income on 30.09.2011at a loss of ₹ 373,72,42,238/- and revised the same on 30.03.2013 under which the loss remained unchanged but the credit of prepaid taxes was increased from ₹ 26,76,26,540/- to ₹ 26,89,83,389/-. 3. Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) computed the income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As a matter of fact Ld. CIT (A) also placed on reliance on the decisions of the ITAT reported in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad Vs. Karnavati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2228/Ahd./2012 A. Y. 2008-09), and of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No. 5072/Mum/2005 6774/Mum./2008 (A. Y. S. 200-02 2004-05) and also the decision of his predecessor in assessee s own case for A. Y. 2008- 09 and 2009-10. 6. No circumstances are brought to our notice to say as to why the decisions of the Tribunal stated above and also the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court shall not be made applicable facts of the present case. We are convinced with the reasoning adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that in assessee s own case for the earlier assessment years, when the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on this ground, the revenue preferred an appeal in ITA No. 4433/Del/2013 in respect of assessment year 2010-11and this Tribunal while noticing its own order dated 24.01.2014 in ITA No.126/Del/2013 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide order dated 24.01.2014 and also the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) found that the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A) was accepted by the Tribunal in those ITAs as such consistent with such view, this tribunal upheld the orders of the first appellate authority in respect of orders 2010-11 to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have gone through the record on this aspect. On a careful reading of the record i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
