TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication order under section 154 of the Act? Facts of the case 2. Under the normal provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961 (i.e., under sections 28 to 44D), the assessee computed the income which was adjusted against the brought forward losses and depreciation of the earlier years and accordingly, the total income was computed at Rs. Nil. The assessee company computed the book profit under section 115J at Rs. Nil after adjusting deduction under section 80HHC and after adjusting the unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax had passed the order under section 143(3) on 26-3-1991 and computed the income at ₹ 19,30,154 under the normal provisions of the Act wherein he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the assessee company that to deduct or not to deduct unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses of the earlier years from the profit of the business while computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act is a debatable issue and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax has no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 154 of the Act. 7. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal did not accept the contention of the assessee company that while computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Act unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years are not to be deducted from the profits of the business as shown in the Profit Loss Account. 8. Mr. Jhaveri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encourage exports. Therefore, even though section 80AB contemplates non obstante clause, the said section 80AB will be subject to section 80HHC to the extent of export profits being worked out from business profits. Our High Court held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84 has no application to the facts before them. Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120 has no application to the facts before them. 10. Mr. Jhaveri, the learned Counsel, then pointed out that the following High Courts of India had also taken the same view as that of the Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
