2006 (7) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eduction under section 80 IA of the Act upon taking into consideration the unabsorbed losses is sustainable on facts and in law? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that there was no debate in understanding and interpreting the provisions of section 80 IA of the Act, especially with reference to the computation part of the said section?" 2. The brief facts leading to the above questions of law are as under: 3. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and the   corresponding accounting year ended on 31.03.1997.  The assessee filed return of income on 28.11.1997 disclosing an income of Rs.3,31,188/-.  The gross  income  declared was  Rs.34,92,096.87  and on this, deduction under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  The C.I.T.  (A) dismissed the appeal by following the Supreme Court Judgment reported  in  224 ITR 604  in  the  case  of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.  Kotagiri Industrial Co-Operative Tea Factory Ltd.  and confirmed  the  order  of  the  Assessing Officer.   Aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  first  appellate authority, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate  Tribunal  (hereinafter referred to  as  the  "Tribunal").  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by following the Supreme Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en in the matter.  The assessee is entitled to the full amount of deduction under both the sections without deducting earlier years' losses from the current income."  6. Heard the counsel. The issue is well settled now by Supreme Court judgment in the case of C.I.T.  Vs.  Kotagiri Industrial Cooperative Tea Factory Ltd.  reported in 224 ITR 604, wherein it was held as follows : "Having regard to the law as laid down by this Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt.  Ltd.'s case [1985] 155 ITR 120 and H.H.  Sir Rama Varma's case [1994] 205 ITR 433, it must be held that before considering the matter  of  deduction under  section  80P(2), the Income-tax Officer had rightly set off the carr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case of C.I.T.  Vs.  Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd., relied on by the counsel for the assessee is also not relevant to the present case, as in that case, the finding was that the issue involved was a debatable one and hence it was not a subject matter for rectification under Section 154 of the Act.   In the present case, the issue involved is not a debatable one and is settled by the Supreme Court judgments cited supra.   While interpreting the scope of rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the Supreme Court, in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers and Others, reported in 82 ITR 50, held as follows: "A mistake apparent on the record must be....