TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manual filing of return/claims and have directed the Respondents to act on such manual filing of returns. Once such instance is in Tara Exports vs. Union of India [ 2018 (9) TMI 1474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] In the present case, since it is not in dispute that prior to AY 2018-2019 the computation of the Profits and Gains of the eligible unit by giving the deduction under Section 10AA would have to be independent of the computation of Profit and Gains of the ineligible unit, it is obvious that in the present case which concerns AY (AY) 2017-2018, the Petitioner should be permitted to carry forward the losses of its ineligible unit. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Respondent to either accept the manual return of the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. In its return for AY 2017-18, filed on 29th November 2017, the Petitioner reported an income as regards its SEZ Unit, under the head Profit and Gains of Business and Profession (PGBP) to the tune of ₹ 52,55,59,560/-. This SEZ Unit (otherwise referred to as the eligible unit ) is eligible to claim deduction under Section 10AA. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC) the Petitioner first calculated the PGBP of the eligible unit separately by claiming the deduction under Section 10AA in Form ITR-6. In other words, the losses of the ineligible unit i.e. the unit set up in the DTA, in the sum of ₹ 33,80,37,785/- was not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, the present petition was filed. 6. In response to the notice issued in the present petition on 9th April, 2019 the Respondents have filed a counter affidavit where it is not disputed that the amendment to Section 10AA, to overcome the decision of the Supreme Court in Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) was with effect from 1st April, 2018. It is pointed out in para 3.8 of the counter affidavit that the CBDT under circular No.2/2018 dated 15th February, 2018 published the explanatory notes of the Finance Act, 2017 to reflect the legislative intent. The relevant portion of the explanatory notes as set out in the said circular read as under:- 3.8 The Explanatory Notes to Finance Act, 2017, published by the CBDT v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t April, 2018 and would apply only from AY 2018-19, it is clear that for all the AYs prior to 2018-2019, the law explained by the Supreme Court in Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra) would apply. This is not even disputed by the Revenue. 8. If the legal position is therefore clear then it becomes incumbent on the Respondents to correct the E-filing software to enable the implementation of the decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. (supra). In other words, it will not be open to the Respondents to contend that the E-filing software will determine whether an Assessee can carry forward losses of ineligible unit. The software will have to be changed to comply with the legal requirement and not the other way round. 9. The iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
