9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration of this Court: "i. Whether High Court has erred in upholding ITAT's decision in allowing assessee's claim towards setoff of losses of STP/SEZ units against other income, when Supreme Court in CIT v. Yokogowa India Ltd.,(2017) 391 ITR 274 (SC), has held that losses of 10A units cannot be set off against income of non-10A units? ii. Whether High Court has erred in holding that grounds raised before it are no longer res integra and are covered by its decision in assessee's own case - (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Kar), when this decision has not reached finality because Department had filed petition against it in Supreme Court and also High Court has failed to appreciate that Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT, (1992) 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue fairly accepts that Questions No.(iii) and (iv) stand concluded by authoritative pronouncements while Questions No.(v), (vi) and (vii) do not strictly arise in the instant matter. That leaves us with Questions No.(i), (ii) and (viii). This Special Leave Petition challenges the judgment and final order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in ITA No.316 of 2012, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in ITA No.315 of 2021. ITA No.315 of 2012 in turn was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in ITA No.464 of 2017. While disposing of ITA No.464 of 2017, the High Court had made following observations: "14. At this stage, learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court, we dispose of the instant petition by reiterating the observations and clarifying that as and when the decisions with respect to the Questions No.(i), (ii) and (viii) are rendered by this Court, the matters shall be governed in terms of directions issued by the High Court. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ITEM NO.2 - SLP (C) No.11582/2021 In addition to the aforestated three surviving questions in SLP (C) No.7244 of 2021, following two questions, according to the revenue, require consideration: "i. Whether High Court has erred in holding that expenses of corporate office are to be allocated on ad hoc percentage of 20% and not based on tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
