TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off the unabsorbed depreciation first and making the return Nil, thereby leaving the Assessee in a position where it could not claim any deduction under Section 10B as there was no income after set off of carry forward depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years. This method of computing the income in the present case made by the Revenue is totally against the said law as has been declared in the aforesaid decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd., [ 2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] Decision of the ITAT, which is impugned herein, would not stand in the legal scrutiny, in view of the law having been declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, we are of the view that, the Substantial Question of Law in favour of assessee. - T.C.A.Nos.395 to 398 & 400 of 2019 And C.M.P.Nos.13142, 13150, 13157 & 13162 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2020 - Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing counsel Assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani [In all appeals] For the Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar [In all appeals] JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Senior Standing counsel assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani, learned counsel for the Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 4. It is not disputed before us that the above referred Substantial Questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s.Comstar Automative Technologies Private Limited., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I (3) in T.C.A.No.228 of 2011 dated 18.03.2020, which was followed by this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s.Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd., in T.C.A.No.301 of 2019 dated 06.07.2020. 5. The operative portion of the judgment in the case of M/s.Comstar Automative Technologies Private Limited., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle I (3) (cited supra) reads as follows: 25 . Having considered the said questions, as has been brought before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration, their Lordships have decided the issue in favour of the Assessee. The relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Yokogawa India Ltd., are quoted hereunder : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter VI of the Act can be understood by acknowledging that any such reference or mention would have been a repetition of what has already been provided in Section 10A. The provisions of Sections 80HHC and 80HHE of the Act providing for somewhat similar deductions would be wholly irrelevant and redundant if deductions under Section 10A were to be made at the stage of operation of Chapter VI of the Act. The retention of the said provisions of the Act i.e. Sections 80HHC and 80HHE, despite the amendment of Section 10A, in our view, indicates that some additional benefits to eligible Section 10A units, not contemplated by Sections 80HHC and 80HHE, was intended by the legislature. Such a benefit can only be understood by a legislative mandate to understand that the stages for working out the deductions under Sections 10A and 80HHC and 80HHE are substantially different. This is the next aspect of the case which we would now like to turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. All the appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. 26 . In the aforesaid Judgment, the reason for such conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been explained at para 17 in unequivocal terms. The Apex Court has specifically held that, at the stage of the aggregate of the incomes under other heads, the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70, 72 and 74 of the Act would be a premature for application. The deduction under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the Assessee from the gross total income. Ultimately, the issue has been settled with the following words of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
