TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the above cited judgment in CHENSING VENTURES. [ 2007 (4) TMI 204 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as well as the circular, the matter in issue requires further adjudication at the hands of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Substantial Question of Law raised by the appellant is held in affirmative, as it requires further adjudication - T.C.A. No. 560 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN And THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE For Appellant : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr. T. R. Senthil Kumar Standing counsel for Direst Taxes JUDGMENT [ Judgment of the Court wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 and accordingly, issued the notice under Section 148 and in response to the same, the assessee, vide letter dated 17.04.2013, made a request to treat the return already filed on 28.10.2010, as response to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer having gone through the materials, had reassessed the income and accordingly passed the following order: Tax working on the income offered under Section 68(1) of the I.T.Act: Tax on ₹ 88,55,000/- @ 30% ... ₹ 26,56,500/- Add:Surcharge @ 10% ... ₹ 2,65,650/- ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 202,777,325 8,569,470 202,777,32 5 8,569,470 4 2001-02 16,427,337 6,683,121 16,427,337 6,683,121 5 2002-03 4,477,948 5,233,513 4,477,948 5,233,513 6 2003-04 24,840,476 4,202,947 24,840,476 4,202,947 4. The assessee, aggrieved by the said ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal and in the memorandum of grounds of appeal had raised the following Substantial Questions of Law: 1.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against sum chargeable to tax as income u/s.68 of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in applying the new provision of section 115 BBE of the Act which barred set off of losses against income determined u/s.68 which was effective from 01.04.2017 and not in existence in the statute for the current assessment year 2006-07? 6. Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee has invited the attention of this Court to the Circular No.11/2018 dated 19.06.2019 issued by the Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sources ''. Sec.71 deals with set off of loss against income under any other head. After setting off losses against the income under the same head, if the net result is still a loss, the assessee can set off the said loss under Section 71 of the Act against income of the same year under any other head, except for losses which arise under the head ''capital gains''. The income tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total on the income classified and chargeable under the various heads. Sec.14 has classified different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not a collection of distinct tax levied separately on each h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, observed that vide Finance Act 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under Section 115BBE of the Act till the assessment year 2016-2017. In the case on hand, the assessment year pertains to 2006-2007 and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the above cited judgment in 2007 (291) ITR 258 as well as the circular, the matter in issue requires further adjudication at the hands of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Substantial Question of Law No.2 raised by the appellant is held in affirmative, as it requires further adjudication. As a consequence, there is no necessity to answer Substantial Question of Law No.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
