TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw no.3 is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd.[ 2020 (3) TMI 814 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . We are convinced that the Questions of Law involved in the present appeal are covered by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, cited supra. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decisions of this Court, the Questions of Law are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee - T.C.A.No.975 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Duraiswamy And Hon'ble Mrs. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi For the Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT M.DURAISWAMY, J. Challenging the order passed in I.T.A.No.175/Mds/2010 in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai B Bench, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2.While completing the assessment of the assessee Company for the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee incurred an amount of ₹ 6,67,478/- towards intern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was entitled to deduction under Section 10A in respect of the alleged new unit even though the said unit had been substantially made up using the assets of the old units and thus not fulfilling the conditions laid down in clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 10A(2)? 3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10A was to be allowed before adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation? 4.When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Question of Law no.1 is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 33 (SC) [Commissioner of Income-tax, Central III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.], an un-reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.01.2019 made in T.C.A.Nos.1257 1258 of 2009 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s.Sak Soft Ltd.] and the Question of Law no.2 is covered by the decision of this Bench dated 19.01.2021 made in T.C.A.Nos.1470 to 1472 of 2010 [Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted judgment of this Bench dated 19.01.2021 dated T.C.A.Nos.1470 to 1472 of 2010 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s.S.R.A. Systems Ltd., No.100, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai] , this Bench held as follows: ... 5.As the issue of allowability of deduction under Section 10A is common to all the three Assessment Years, all the three Tax Appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the Assessment Year 2000-01, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.11.2000. The assessee claimed that it was eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The return was processed on 28.03.2002. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on account of the assessee Company being ineligible for deduction under Section 10A. Subsequently, a notice dated 22.03.2007 was issued under Section 148 and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the scrutiny assessment order was passed on 17.12.2007, disallowing the entire claim of deduction under Section 10B. Further, the expenditure incurred for the renovation and repairs of the rented premises of the assessee Company was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 16.05.2008 in I.T.A.No.2255/Mds/06 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 26.10.2018 in Tax Case Appeal No.1916 of 2008, the assessee Company would be entitled to deduction under Section 10A and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not correct. Since the order passed under Section 263 itself has been set aside, the cause of action for re-assessment does not survive. (iv)Un-reported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2020 made in T.C.A.No.228 of 2011 [M/s.Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited, Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District- 603 204 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034] , the Division Bench held as follows: ... 27.Therefore the law has been settled by the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, where in clear terms, it has been held that, the deductions either under Section 10A or 10B would be made while computing the gross total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
