TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter IV for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. It further held that though Section 10A of the Act as amended provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. In view of the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Apex Court, we are of the view that Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of Sec.263 of the Act so as to term the order of AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We therefore set aside the order of Ld. PCIT. Thus, the grounds of the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.1600/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 19-12-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without giving effect to carry forward losses. He was of the view that after giving effect to the current year losses as well as carry forward losses, the eligible deduction u/s 10A of the Act should have been of ₹ 4,41,788/- only and by allowing the deduction of ₹ 1,02,28,453/- as claimed by the assessee had resulted into allowing excess deduction u/s 10A of ₹ 97,86,665/-. He was therefore of the view that the order passed by the AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He accordingly issued show-cause notice dated 17.03.2015 which was served on assessee on 23.03.2015 calling upon the assessee as to why the order should not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. Assessee challenged the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Pr CIT-1, Pune erred in law and on facts in setting aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to pass an order after proper examination of the facts of the case and provisions of the law. 4. The learned Pr CIT-1, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that whether nature of relief u/s 10A of the ITA, 1961 is an exemption or deduction while computing gross total income is a debatable issue wherein more than one plausible view are possible and are there. 5. He further erred in law and on facts that in not appreciating the fact that a debatable issue on which more than one plausible views are possible and merely because Assessing Officer has taken one plausib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words, he submitted that the deduction should be granted first and the set off of unabsorbed depreciation of eligible units after computing the gross total income of eligible undertaking after the claim of deduction. He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Apex Court, that Ld. PCIT was not justified in invoking the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. He therefore submitted that the order of Ld. PCIT be set aside. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of Ld. PCIT. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the view of the Ld. PCIT that deduction u/s 10A of the Act should have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
