AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of convenience and brevity. 3. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing the ground relating to the disallowance of provision for lease rent. This ground is accordingly dismissed for all the years under consideration. 4. The assessee company was previously known as "West Coast Oxygen Ltd." and changed its name as Excel Crop Care Ltd., with effect from 13.1.2003. A scheme of arrangement between the assessee company and Excel Industries Ltd. was sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 18.7.2003 and 1.8.2003 and become effective from 1.9.2003. As per the scheme, entire undertaking of Excel Industries Ltd related to Agri Business was transferred to the assessee company as a going concern from the appointed date 1.4.2002. 4.1. During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received UTI income of US-64 which was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(33) of the Act. The AO found that the assessee has not attributed any expenses which have been incurred to earn the exempt income, though for earning of any income some kind of expenditure necessarily to be incurred. The assessee was asked to j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound No. 2 is partly allowed for the assessee and the Revenue. 9. The third grievance relates to the denial of deduction u/s. 80IA. We find that for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the AO denied the claim because the assessee did not file the audit report alongwith return of income and in A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09, the AO was of the view that the quantum of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years. 10. In A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO holding that it is mandatory for the assessee to claim the deduction in the return itself and the audit report has to be filed alongwith return. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied upon the provisions of Sec. 80AC of the Act which was introduced by the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f 1.4.2006. In A.Y. 2007-08, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO holding that his predecessor has denied the claim of deduction for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. In A.Y. 2008-09, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO relying upon the decision of his pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of assessment proceedings and therefore the AO was precluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 284 ITR 323. In so far as set off of notional losses is concerned, the Ld. DR relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 13. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below in the light of the arguments made by both the sides. The requirement of filing the audit report alongwith return of income is declaratory and if the assessee complies with the same before completion of the assessment and offered a satisfactory explanation for his failure to submit the same in time, the ITO may consider the same and examine the claim of the assessee. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shivanand Electronics (Bombay) 209 ITR 63. We further find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Web Commerce (India) (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that once the audit report is filed before framing of the assessment, the requirement of the provisions stands complied. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s.80IA. The only dispute relates to the losses which were already set off against other income in the earlier years. It is the case of the Revenue that though the depreciation and the losses have already been set of in earlier years, the same has to be notionally brought forward and again set off against the current years income. This is contrary to the decision in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court had the occasion to consider the following questions: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that initial assessment year in section 80-IA(5) would only mean the year of commencement and not the year of claim ? (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in saying that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years before the first year of claim, which has already been absorbed, could be notionally carried forward and taken into consideration for c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th a situation, where on the one hand there are decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts which are in favour of the assessee and on the other hand we have a decision of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench which is in favour of the Revenue. Which decision should get precedence? The answer lies in the decision of the Tribunal Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Kanel Oil & Export Indus. Ltd. Vs JCIT 121 ITD 596 wherein the Tribunal has held as under: "A simple answer would be that the judgement of a High Court, though not of the Jurisdictional High Court, prevails over an order of the Special Bench even though it is from the Jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal on the basis of the view that the High Court is above the Tribunal in the judicial hierarchy. The Tribunal further observed that this simple view is subject to some exceptions. It can work efficiently when there is only one judgement of a High Court on the issue and no contrary view has been expressed by any other High Court. 19. Before us, the decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel are from the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka which are in favour of the assessee. No contrary decision of any other High Courts have been brought on record before ....