Appeal success for 2008-09 and 2009-10 tax assessments: key rulings on set off, profit calculation.

The appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 was partially allowed, with the Tribunal rejecting the addition under Section 14A of the IT Act but allowing the set off of brought forward assessed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the current year's Business Income and Income from Other Sources. Additionally, the Tribunal disallowed the inclusion of profit from the 10A unit in SEZ Mumbai for calculating book profit under Section 115JB. For the assessment year 2009-2010, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in full, applying the same decisions as for 2008-09.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 14A of the IT Act.
2. Set off of brought forward assessed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against the current year's Business Income.
3. Set off of brought forward assessed unabsorbed depreciation against the current year's Income from Other Sources.
4. Addition of Profit of 10A Unit located in SEZ Mumbai to arrive at the Book Profit under Section 115JB.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 14A of the IT Act:
The assessee disputed the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 2936/- under Section 14A of the IT Act made by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, during the hearing, the assessee's representative submitted that this ground was not pressed. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected Ground No.1 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2. Set off of Brought Forward Assessed Business Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The assessee contested the AO's decision not to allow the set off of brought forward assessed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the previous assessment year 2004-05 against the current year's Business Income. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referenced its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, where it had followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and ITAT Pune Bench's decision in Patni Computer Systems Ltd. v. Dy. CIT. The Tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 2 & 3 for the assessment year 2008-09, subject to the final figures of loss after giving effect to earlier years' orders.

3. Set off of Brought Forward Assessed Unabsorbed Depreciation Against Income from Other Sources:
Similar to the issue of set off against Business Income, the assessee also contested the non-allowance of set off of brought forward assessed unabsorbed depreciation against the current year's Income from Other Sources. The Tribunal, following its earlier order and the jurisdictional High Court's decision, allowed the set off, subject to the final figures of loss after giving effect to earlier years' orders.

4. Addition of Profit of 10A Unit Located in SEZ Mumbai to Arrive at the Book Profit under Section 115JB:
The assessee challenged the AO's addition of profit from its 10A unit located in SEZ Mumbai to the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's unit in Mumbai was located in SEZ and referenced Section 115JB(6), which provides that MAT provisions do not apply to income from any business carried on in a unit located in SEZ. The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in including the book profit of the SEZ unit while computing book profit under Section 115JB for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below and allowed Ground No.4 for the assessment year 2008-09.

Common Order for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-2010:
The Tribunal noted that the facts and grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2009-2010 were similar to those for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, it applied the same decisions mutatis mutandis for the assessment year 2009-2010. Specifically:
- Ground No.1 for the assessment year 2009-2010, related to the addition of profit of the 10A unit in SEZ Mumbai to the book profit under Section 115JB, was allowed based on the same reasoning as for the assessment year 2008-09.
- Ground No.2 for the assessment year 2009-2010, related to the set off of brought forward assessed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, was also allowed based on the same reasoning as for the assessment year 2008-09.

Conclusion:
- The appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 was allowed in part.
- The appeal for the assessment year 2009-2010 was allowed in full.

---