TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shi Modani ORDER G.S. Pannu, The captioned appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 26.09.2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 04.06.2010 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. In its appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the carry forward of deficit of ₹ 45,87,98,441/- and allowing set off against the income of the subsequent years. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so charitable institutions in providing medical or education objects. The Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown ₹ 45,87,98,441/- as deficit and claimed benefit of carry forward for future set-off. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit by observing that loss/deficit cannot be determined while computing income u/s 11 of the Act. The CIT(A) has since allowed the claim of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 vide ITA No. 2248/Mum/2012 dated 10.09.2013. 5. Before us, the plea of the Department is that the decision of the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided by law, in addition to normal deduction? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow to carry forward of deficit of earlier years relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) while the revenue did not file SLP against the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR110 (Bom) due to low tax effect? . stand on the same footing as are being canvassed before us in the instant case. Thus, there is no error on the part of the CIT(A) in following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
