Appeal partially allowed: Set-off granted, adjustments deleted, issues to verify.

Minda Sai Limited, C/o. RN. Saraf & Co. Versus Income Tax Officer

Minda Sai Limited, C/o. RN. Saraf & Co. Versus Income Tax Officer - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation from previous years.
2. Increase in book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
3. Credit of tax deducted at source and related interest under Sections 234D and 244A of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Set-off of Unabsorbed Depreciation from Previous Years:

The primary issue was whether unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, amounting to Rs. 4,39,46,863, could be set off against the current year's income under 'profits and gains from business and profession.' The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this set-off based on a Special Bench decision in DCIT Vs Times Guaranty Limited, which held that unabsorbed depreciation from years prior to 2002-03 could only be carried forward for eight subsequent assessment years. The CIT(A) upheld this view, relying on the same Special Bench decision.

However, the Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court decision in General Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, which allowed unabsorbed depreciation from assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 to be carried forward beyond eight years and set off against subsequent years' profits without any time limit. The Tribunal emphasized the hierarchical judicial system, noting that decisions of higher courts must be followed. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation in line with the Gujarat High Court's ruling.

2. Increase in Book Profit under Section 115JB:

The assessee contested the increase in book profit due to:
- Provision for doubtful debts: Rs. 5,61,837
- Prior period expenses: Rs. 4,12,896
- Disallowance of expenses under Section 14A: Rs. 2,00,225

For the provision for doubtful debts, the assessee did not present specific arguments, so this part of the ground was treated as not pressed. Regarding prior period expenses, the Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case (Shivashahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd Vs ITO). Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 4,12,896.

For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court decision in CIT Vs Holcim India Pvt Ltd, which held that disallowance under Section 14A could not be invoked without corresponding exempt income. The Tribunal applied this principle to Section 115JB, concluding that the adjustment for disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable in law, as there was no corresponding exempt income. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the adjustment of Rs. 2,00,225.

3. Credit of Tax Deducted at Source and Related Interest:

The assessee claimed a credit of Rs. 44,55,301 for tax deducted at source (TDS) but received credit for only Rs. 28,69,587. The assessee also contested the charging of interest under Section 234D and the withdrawal of interest under Section 244A. The Tribunal remitted this issue to the AO for necessary verification, as no specific grievances were raised, and the Departmental Representative did not oppose this course of action.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing the AO to grant the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, delete the adjustments in book profit for prior period expenses and disallowance under Section 14A, and verify the TDS credit and related interest issues. The decision emphasized adherence to higher judicial authorities' rulings and proper application of legal principles.