9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve ground that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer denying set off of inter head adjustment of income from other sources of Rs. 23,60,578/- against business loss of 10A unit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in software development and filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28.11.2003 admitting loss of Rs. 68,82,402/- and claimed exemption u/s 10A of the Act. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1). Since the assessee being a software exporter, the entire amount of loss has been claimed as exempt u/s 10A. The Assessing Officer subsequently found that the admitted loss includes set off claimed by the assessee of interest on bank deposit of Rs. 22,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess loss of Rs. 92,16,363/- and income from other sources at Rs. 23,60,302/-. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the current year business loss has been set off from once source against income from another source under the same head of income as per the provisions of sec. 70. The Assessing Officer has made a finding that the loss u/s 10A cannot be considered for set off. The CIT(A) considered the submissions and also the arguments on exemption and treatment of business loss and he was of the opinion that as per the submissions of the ld. AR there is a change in the terminology of the exemption u/s 10A to be treated as deduction from total income. The CIT(A) has discussed elaborately on section and the Chapter and also the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is distinguishable whereas the assessee has set off loss of 10A unit under the same head of income being in the nature of interest and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction while computing total income. The ld. AR relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Dy. CIT, 325 ITR 102, wherein held that assessee having adjusted 40 per cent of the loss of its plantation division as attributable to the business activity of manufacture and sale of tea and same is permissible. Similar view was taken by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Qualcomm India P Ltd vs ACIT, 147 ITD 17 and prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit is available for set off u/s 70. So, same principle applies to the provisions of 10A. We find that a similar issue was considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Lason India Pvt. Ltd in Tax case (Appeal) No.1529 of 2007 dated 29.10.2013 wherein it was held as under: "6. In the light of the circular issued by the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes, we do not find the contention of the Revenue remains any longer res integra for this court to consider the same. In this decision rendered in T.C(A) Nos. 72 & 73 of 2009, dated 22.10.2013, Commissioner of Income tax vs M/s Pentasoft Technologies Ltd this Court has also considered the effect of the circular as well as the decision of the Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
