2014 (1) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....10A/10B provides for "deduction" and not "exemption" and hence, the income of the assessee has to be computed as stipulated in S 2 (45) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10AA without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation by placing reliance upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s Yakogawa India P Ltd (Kar) 341 ITR 385 ignoring the fact that the department has not accepted the ratio laid down in the said case and preferred a SLP against the said decision; 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s 10AA without setting off ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....query raised by AO and relied on the Form No.ITR-6 and stated that allowance u/s 10A has to be given before setting off brought forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The AO did not find favour with the assessee's explanation and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd V/s DCIT 1(1) dated 1.4.2010 observed that after amendment in 2000, the nature of benefit u/s 10B is deduction and not exemption. He also mentioned that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd is not applicable to the facts of present case. After referring the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himatasingike Seide Ltd (286 ITR 255) (2006), and....