TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m business income. Hence, the ground of appeal No.2 raised by assessee is allowed. Income from other source - interest on income tax refund which was then clubbed with income from business - HELD THAT:- Referring to the statement of total income filed for the year under consideration and the perusal of the same clearly reflects that income from other sources comprised of interest on income tax refund of ₹ 55,244/-, which was then clubbed with income from business at ₹ 4,51,295/- and the gross total income was declared at ₹ 5,06,539/-. This is a mistake at the end of Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we direct him to adopt the income from other sources at ₹ 55,244/-. The ground of appeal No.3 raised by assessee is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the issue raised vide ground of appeal No.2 is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for assessment year 2011-12. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is general and hence, do not need any adjudication. 4. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 5. The issue raised vide ground of appeal No.2 raised by assessee is against computation of deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act, wherein the assessee had claimed the same out of its business income but the Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had restricted the same by first setting off of unabsorbed depreciation from business income and then allowing dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore setting off of unabsorbed depreciation is settled by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Anr. Vs. M/s. Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) and also by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Black Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. reported in 20 taxmann.com 727 (Bom). 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemasingka Siede Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No.1501 of 2008, judgment dated 19.09.2013 had held otherwise while deciding the appeal for the period prior to amendment to Chapter VI-A or section 10A of the Act. 10. The Tribunal in assessment year 2011-12 (supra) had held that exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act relying on the decision in the case of Hemasingka Sied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
