TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA No.1005/2008, would decide the appeal in ITA No.1007/2008, both the appeals are taken together for disposal with consent of both the advocates. 2. It is not in dispute that the assessee is carrying on the business the manufacture of wireless equipment pagers, mobile systems etc. We are concerned with the assessment year 1996-97. Assessee filed return of income and also revised return of income for the said year. He had claimed deductions available under Sec. 80HHC of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and thereafter he sought for setting off the unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation for previous assessment years that was brought forward for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer by his order dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid order of the Assessing Officer was challenged before the Commissioner. The CIT on 30/05/2002 disposed of the matter giving effect to the orders of the assessing officer rejecting the contention of the assessee. This order of the assessing officer was the subject matter before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of both the matters together i.e., the appeal of the revenue and so also the challenge made by the assessee so far as the order of the CIT dated 30/05/2002. 5. So far as the first appeal is concerned substantial question of law would be "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the relief U/s 80 HHC of the Act should be allowed before adjusting the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustified in holding that the law laid down in the HMT case by the Karnataka High Court and Salgocar Mining Industries Ltd., so also Shrike Construction Equipment Ltd., were already pronounced by the time order came to be made, therefore, in view of two possible views, the CIT ought not to have held that the order of the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the revenue. In other words according to him, CIT was exercising powers under Section 263, it ought to have set aside the orders of the assessing authority as the assessing authority had all the judgments by the time he pronounced the orders and said three judgments were in favour of the assessee and one judgment was in favour the revenue. In that situation, according to the learned couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Then coming to the second appeal we have the decision in IPCA Laboratory's case reported in 266 ITR 521 SC. The relevant paragraph would be Para 13 which reads as follows: "Section 80 AB is also in chapter VI-A. It starts with the words "where any deduction is required to be made or allowed under any section of this chapter". This would include s. 80 HHC. Sec. 80AB further provides that "not withstanding anything contained in that section". Thus, s. 80AB has been given an overriding effect over all other sections in Chapter VI-A. Sec. 80HHC does not provide that its provisions are to prevail over s. 80AB or over any other provision of the Act. Sec. 80HHC would thus be governed by s. 80AB. Decisions of the Bombay High Court and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with reference to each unit taking into consideration whether such unit has the benefits envisaged under the above sections and then the total income of the business has to be computed. According to him, first, profit unit has to be taken into consideration and after giving the deductions, the remaining profit has to be added to the income of the other units which did not have the benefit of section 80HHC and then the unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation for the previous years have to be deducted from the income. According to him the method adopted by the Assessing Officer even after the matter was remitted back by the CIT, was erroneous as order is again contra to the provisions of the Act and also law in IPCA Laboratory's case. &nb....