AC|IT-CIRCLE 5(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. OMNI MATRIX PVT LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1505/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2017AY 2003-042 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it was based on the established judgment of the Apex Court. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order directing a re-computation of deduction under Section 10B. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) correctly followed the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from earlier years should be set off against the income of a 100% EOU unit before computing deduction under Section 10B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B,Section 32,Section 72

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Smt. H. L. Soumya Achar, JCIT
Hearing: 21.09.2017Pronounced: 28.09.2017

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) inter alia on following grounds:

1.

The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - 12, Bangalore, is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute deduction u/s.10B without setting off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from income of 100% EOU unit. Further the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years should be set off against the income non-EOU unit and carry forward of any remaining loss has to be done as per the provisions of section 32 and section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Page 2 of 2 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before hearing of the appeal.

2.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that impugned issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd., [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Kar). The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa (supra). Now the judgment of jurisdictional High Court has been approved by the Apex Court. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A).

3.

Having carefully examined the order of the CIT(A), we find no infirmity therein as the issue was adjudicated in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa (supra) . Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A).

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 28th September, 2017.

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →