TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction u/s 80HHC in respect of profit from DEPB. The impugned order has been passed by the CIT(A) on 27.11.2012 in pursuance to the directions of this Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 31.05.2010 in ITA No.1467/Ahd/2006 for AY 2002-03, ITA Nos.546 & 3242/Ahd/2007 for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, ITA No.1089/Ahd/2008 for AY 2002-03 and ITA Nos.1242 & 3557/Ahd/2007 for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. 4. We find that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was carried to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and thereafter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2013 in petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s).17330/2012 arising from the judgment and order dated 25.01.2012 in TA No.2377/2010 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, decided the issue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass consequential order. Thus, the very basis of the impugned orders has become non-existent in view of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue in all the three years under consideration has become infructuous. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue for all the three years under cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 80HHC are satisfied in the instant case while computing the deduction allowable to the assessee. With these directions, ground no. 3 in ITA no. 1089/And/2008, ground no.2 in ITA nos. 1242&3557/Ahd /2007 are disposed of." B2. On this issue appellant vide its letter dated 16.11.2012 submitted as under:- "Ground No 2 Claim for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act while determining book profits u/s 115JB of the Act 1. In regard to the above, it is submitted that the issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd Vs CIT 327 ITR 305 (SC) (Copy of the judgment is submitted as Annexure 8). While adjudicating the claim for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act for determining the book profits u/s 115JA of the Act, the Mumbai Special Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd., [106 ITD 193] held that the deduction under sectopm 80HHC in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits and not on the basis of the profit computed under the regular provisions of law applicable to the computation of profit and gains of business or profession. However, subsequently, Hon'ble Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogy System [328 ITR 380(Mad.)]. 3. In view of the above facts and legal position, the learned AO should be directed to reduce the entire amount of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, as per Books and without considering restrictions imposed under section 80HH(1B) of the Act, for the claim of the amount, while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act." B3. I have carefully considered rival contentions. It is seen that the A.O. has not allowed benefit of deduction u/s.80HHC while computing book profits as per the provisions of sec.115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant contended that deduction u/s.80HHC should be computed for the purposes of sec. 115 JB on the book profits and not as per the profits declared in the P&L Account. In this regard reliance has been placed on Rajnikant Schnelder and Associates Pvt. Ltd. 302 ITR 22 (Mad.) and CIT vs SPEL Semi Conductors 323 ITR 488 (Mad). SLP filed by the revenue in this case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is reported at 320 ITR (ST) 21. On the other hand Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Ajanta Pharma Ltd 222 CTR 441 has held that for the purposes of sec.115JB de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not point out any mistake in the aforesaid order of the CIT(A); therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in all the three years under consideration. 8. The common ground Nos. 3 & 4 of the appeal of the Revenue in all the three assessment years read as under:- iii. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. iv) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 9. The above grounds of appeal are general in nature and in absence of any specific plea taken by the Departmental Representative during the course of hearing, they are dismissed. 10. The common ground No.1 of the Cross-objections taken by the assessee in all the three assessment years under consideration reads as under:- 1. That the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act and therefore the ld. AO should be directed to allow the deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act, as claimed by the appellant in the return of income or as per the law. 11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower autho....