TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Losses of a 10A/10AA unit as already set-off against other business income of the appellant, should be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of the same unit in a subsequent year - HELD THAT:- From perusal of para 17 of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. , [ 2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] we find that the second substantial question of law is also no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Disallow the deferred compensation claimed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. GANESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV., FOR SRI. R.B. KRISHNA, ADV.,) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE J., This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was right in making an adhoc disallowance of 2.5% of dividend income as expenditure incurred on exempt income when the assessee had identified expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound in which the aforesaid substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal need mention. The assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in numerous business and industrial activity including computer software development and exports and computer hardware manufacture and sale. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 for Assessment Year 2006-07. A draft order of assessment was passed on 31.12.2009. The assessee thereupon filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel, which upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by an order dated 27.09.2010. On the basis of directions issued by before Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed a final order of assessment on 28.10.2010. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d time spent by functionaries responsible for managing companies investments and cash surpluses. It is also submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal in importing the concept of Section 80IA(5) to Section 10A /10AA is perverse and the tribunal grossly erred in not allowing the claim of deferred compensation paid by the trust on behalf of the assessee as expense eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. It is also contended that the tribunal erred in concluding that export nomenclatures as deemed export does not constitute export turnover as defined in Section 10A / 10AA of the Act and is therefore, not eligible for deduction. It is also argued that tribunal grossly erred in holding that VAT / GST cannot be included in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to deemed export and eligibility of Foreign Tax Credit is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the revenue has supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel as well as the tribunal and has submitted that the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal deserves to be answered in favour of the revenue and the appeal is therefore, required to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of substantial question of law No.1, we find that the aforesaid substantial question of law is no longer res integra and has already been answ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. Therefore, the fourth substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. From perusal of paragraph 106 of the judgment rendered by a bench of this court in 'WIPRO LTD. VS. DCIT', (2016) 383 ITR 179 (KAR), we find that the fifth substantial question of law is also no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the fifth substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. We have perused paragraphs 12 to 18 of the decision of this court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANOTHER VS. TATA ELXSI LTD.' 382 ITR 654 (KAR) as well as para 21 of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSINOER OF INCO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
