How many judgments cite CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (286 ITR 255), spanning 2013 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10A, Section 10AA, Section 234D, Section 37(1).

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

286 ITR 255High Court2006#1548 most cited

What is CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. authority for?

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. · Himatasingike Seide · Section 10A deduction · Section 10B exemption · unabsorbed depreciation set off · brought forward business loss set off · profits of business · gross total income · total income computation · carry forward of losses

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 10AA Section 234D Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

unabsorbed depreciation computer software section 10a gross total income section 10 company india total income business interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.

Omega Healthcare Management Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri. K. P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 10Section 10ASection 1I

…ITA.1502/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALURU BENCH 'A', BANGALURU BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1502/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Omega Healthcare Management Services P. Ltd, No.33, NAL, Wind Tunnel Road, Murugeshpalya, Bengaluru 560 017 .. Appellant PAN : AADCM7259F v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle -12(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. K. P. Srinivas, CA Revenue by : Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel Heard on : 15.11.2016 Pronounced on : 06.02.2017 O R D E R PER S.…

ITO 8(2)2, Mumbai vs. Kiara Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5040/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5040/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) I.T.O. – 8(2)-2, M/S Kiara Jewellery Pvt. बनाम/ R. No. 212/216A, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhavan, Unit No. 180, 1St Floor, M.K. Road, Sdf Vi, Mumbai – 400 020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aacck4789M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Dhondial

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 70Section 71Section 72

…Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10AA before computing the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation ignoring that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 255 (2006) has clarified that loss of 10-A unit has to be first set off against 10-A profit and only on balance amount deduction is available and ignoring the fact that decision of Karnataka High Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 1501 of 2008 holding that appeal is devoid of any men .. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances o…

Prexus Health India (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2975/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2011-12 Prexus Health India (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle- 20(1), Ra-4 (Shop), Inder Puri, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi – 110 012. Pan : Aadcp 7893 A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Puri, CAFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(45)Section 28Section 44CSection 5

…loss for assessment year 2007-08. 3. Before ld. CIT(A), assessee had advanced detailed submissions which have been reproduced in his order. After considering the same and following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Himatasingke Seide 286 ITR 255 approved by Hon’ble Apex Court and decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the Case of Global Vantage (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1432 & 2321/Del/2009 held that brought forward business loss and depreciation on eligible unit is to be set-off first and only on the balance deduction u/s 10B is to be allowed. 4. Ld. counsel referred to all the factual as…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Cenvo Publisher Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1476/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.W. Angolkar (DR)

Section 10ASection 253Section 70Section 71Section 72

…, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/sl0A before computing the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation ignoring that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Himatasingike Seide Ltd reported in 286 ITR 255(2006) has clarified that loss of 10-A unit has to be first set off against 10-A profit and only on balance amount deduction is available and ignoring the fact that decision of Karnataka High M/s Cenvo Publisher Services Ltd. Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 1501 of 2008 holding that appeal is devoid of any merit ?" 3. "On the fact…

Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1311/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negim/S. Shrenuj Gems & Jewellery Ltd., Plot No.Gj-09, Seepz++, Marol Industrial Area, Seepz-Sez, Andheri(E), Mumbai 400096 Pan:Aajcs4265M ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai. .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri D.Prabhakar Reddy

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 92C

…nd Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) squarely militates against the stand of the CIT(A) in denying the claim of the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd 286 ITR 255 (Kar). It has also been noted by the CIT(A) that the said decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this context, it may only be said that this facet of the controversy has also been taken note of by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Techno Trap and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as is ev…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 725/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14Section 1OSection 70Section 71Section 72

…he Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 1OA before computing the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation ignoring that the Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Himatsingka Seide Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 255 (2006) which has clarified that loss of 10-A unit has to be first set off against 10- A profit and only on balance amount deduction is available and ignoring the fact that decision of Karnataka High Court was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA 1501 of 2008 holding that appeal is devoid of any merit? 5."Whether on the facts and in the circumst…

Softbrands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1094/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K Baby, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

…unit by invoking the provisions of section 72 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that the aforesaid decision was f…

Adsorbent Carbons Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 42/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41 & 42/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT

Section 10Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(45)

…ums up the Revenue’s case, disallowing the claim for deduction u/s. 10-B as no income survived the adjustment (set off) of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss u/c. VI of the Act, placing reliance on CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 255 (Kar), SLP against which stands dismissed by the Apex Court. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Subsequent to the hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, brought the decision by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. & Others (in Civi…

Adsorbent Carbons Private Limited, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 41/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41 & 42/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Shiva Srinivas, Jt. CIT

Section 10Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(45)

Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd vs. A.C.I.T

In the result, grounds 10 to 18 of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1550/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T(Tp).A No.1550/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Infor (Bangalore) P. Ltd, (Earlier : Softbrands India P. Ltd) Prestige Obelisk, Level 9, Kasturba Road, Bangalore 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aafc9041K V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -12(3), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Cherian K. Baby, Ca Revenue By : Shri. G. R. Reddy, Cit-Dr-I Heard On : 29.03.2015 Pronounced On : 29.04.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Cherian K. Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I

Section 10ASection 70Section 92C

…elief u/s.10A of the Act was to be excluded from the total income before giving effect to set off mandated u/s.70 of the IT(TP)A.1550/Bang/2012 Page - 4 Act. As for the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd, [286 ITR 255], it dealt with a case of netting of loss of 100% EOU from profits of other 100% EOUs. Therefore in our opinion judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd, (supra) is more appropriate in the given case. Accordingly, we hold that the claim of deduction u/s.10A of the Act has to be calculated without setting off…

Telelogic India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1599/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(2)

Safran Enginerring Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1310/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 80E

…carried forward. 3.2 The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by following the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255(Kar.) 4. Before us, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the latest judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in 4 ITA No.1310(Bang)2011 the case of CIT Vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd (341 ITR 385). He has further submitted that following the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Delixus Software India Pvt. Ltd., Tumkur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1167/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Saravanan, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 10BSection 32(1)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(2)Section 80B(5)

…Tribunal in case of ITO Vs M/s Clear Water Technology Services Pvt.Ltd (36 ITR(Trib.)0528 wherein the Tribunal has decided this issue after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT VBs M/s Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 255(Kar.) as well as the latest judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd (Supra) we find that subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Yokogawa India Ltd (Supra) has been decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court after considering the amended provisions of S…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 804/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Prakash, Addl. CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri L. Bharath, C.A

Section 10B

…le jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 6. The learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the issue was decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. Vs. CIT 286 ITR 255 (Kar) and the SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative has pointed out that the issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in ass…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Nous Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1369/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 10ASection 147Section 72

…have heard the ld. DR as well as the ld. AR and considered the relevant material on record. 6. The ld. DR has submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatasingike Page 3 of 5 Seide, 286 ITR 255 (Kar). He has further submitted that the SLP filed by the assessee in the case of Himatasingike Seide (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has attained finality. 7. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is covered by the Hon’ble j…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Bangalore vs. M/S British Engines(I)P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1277/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dave, CA

Section 10ASection 10B

…unit by invoking the provisions of section 72 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken ITA Nos.1277 & 1278/Bang/2014 Page 9 of 15 the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeal…

M/S. Textron India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1228/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoi.T. (T.P) A. No.1228/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S. Textron India Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Textron Global Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.) Global Village, Rvce Post, Mylasandra, Off Mysore Road, Bangalore-560 059 …. Appellant. Pan Aacct 0118M Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P.K. Prasad. Respondent By : Smt. Neera Malhotra, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.1.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijaypal Rao, J.M. :

For Appellant: Shri P.K. PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…unit by invoking the provisions of section 72 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and in doing so, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Himatsingike Seide Ltd., 286 ITR 255 (Kar). In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble High Court has taken the view that deduction u/s. 10B has to be allowed after set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed investment allowance. The 36 IT(TP)A No.1228/Bang/2010 Hon’ble Court took the view that the aforesaid provision was only an exemption provision. The CIT(Appeals) noticed that…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed and the CO by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

For Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…pect of two STPI units before setting off losses of 3rd STPI unit, brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The Assessing Officer relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Himatasingke Seide Ltd. v. CIT, 286 ITR 255 (Kar), allowed the claim u/s. & CO No.92/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 15 10A of the Act after setting off the current year losses of third STPI unit, brought forward business losses and unabsorbed deprecation. 17. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed as claimed by it and relied on the decision of CIT…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Insilica Semiconductors India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/BANG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Prof. S. Sampath, Director of assessee companyFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 10ASection 154

…on that deduction u/s.10A could be allowed only after set off of brought forward loss and depreciation. Reliance was placed by the AO for taking this view on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Himtasingki Seide Ltd [(2006) 286 ITR 255]. As per the AO assessee had claimed such deduction without setting off of such brought forward business loss and depreciation. 04. Assessee had moved in appeal before the CIT (A) against the above rectification order. CIT (A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble ITA.1086 & CO.205/Bang/2015 Page - 3 jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v…

Sami Labs Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Cherian K. Baby, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 92C

…se of CIT vs. Yokogawa India Limited. (supra). IT(TP)A No.1358/Bang/2011 Page 6 of 13 11. We have heard both the parties. The reliance placed by the AO on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Himatsingke Seide Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 255 for netting off loss of non- EOU undertakings from profit of EOU undertakings in determining the income is misplaced, as in that case, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka considered carried forward depreciation of the same EOU unit and not business loss and depreciation of any other undertakings located at different places as in the case of the a…