TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;). Referring to the order of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the unabsorbed loss should not be adjusted before allowing deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that this Tribunal in the case of Amnet Systems has decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Since the issue was pending before the High Court, to keep the matter alive, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee. However, on appeal, the CIT(Appeals) by following the order of this Tribunal in Amnet Systems (supra), directed the Assessing Officer to delete Rs. 87,18,036/-. According to the Ld. D.R., since the matter is pending before the High Court, the CIT(Appeals) ought not have followed the order of this Tribunal. 3. On the contrary, Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that Section 10A of the Act is a provision for exemption and not a deduction. The losses suffered by other eligible unit cannot be set off against the profit of Section 10A unit before giving exemption. According to the Ld. counsel, the benefit of Section 10A of the Act is available to the assessee in respect of eligible unit independently and the losses of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct in the initial assessment year. The first year of the operation of the assessee-company was 2002-03. XIUS India Ltd. suffered a loss of Rs. 1,07,41,343/-. However, the book profit to the extent of Rs. 41,00,700/- was brought to taxation under Section 115JB of the Act. For the assessment year 2004-05, the income of the assessee as per regular computation was Rs. 79,82,112/-. However, the same was set off against the carry forward losses for assessment year 2002-03 and the book profit of Rs. 78,09,173/- was taxed under Section 115JB of the Act. The income determined under regular computation to the extent of Rs. 79,82,112/- was set off against the carry forward loss of Rs. 78,09,173/-. The assessee filed Form 56F claiming that the initial date of registration of STPI unit was 30.03.2001 and the date of commencement of manufacturing activity was 01.11.2003. According to the Ld. D.R., the information furnished by the assessee in Form 56F is contrary to the information available on record for the assessment year 2002-03. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that even though STPI unit was registered on 30.03.2001, the assessee had chose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 10A(8) of the Act, before the due date for filing of the return under Section 139(1) of the Act would be necessary if the assessee intends to keep away itself of the scheme. Referring to sub-section (8) of Section 10A of the Act, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that it may not be necessary for the assessee to file each year the declaration with the Department for opting out of the scheme. Section 10A(8) of the Act begins with non-obstante clause which indicates that a right was conferred on the assessee to declare that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, it is obvious that the assessee can exercise the option for opting out the scheme under Section 10A of the Act. Section 10A of the Act also provides an option to the assessee to select first year of the ten years and once this option was exercised, the assessee will get the benefit of exemption under Section 10A of the Act for the next consecutive years. Once Form 56F was filed within the time limit, it was deemed that the assessee has exercised the option and from that year, the benefit is automatic. It is not necessary that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Revenue appears to be that XIUS India Ltd., Hyderabad was classified as non-STPI unit in the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue has also contended that the assessee has not filed any declaration upto assessment year 2005-06 opting out of the scheme as provided in Section 10A(8) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee. 12. We have carefully gone through the order of the CIT(Appeals) and provisions of Section 10A of the Act. Section 10A of the Act provides for deduction for ten assessment years out of 15 assessment years. An option was given to the assessee to select the assessment year in which the deduction is to be allowed. When the assessee has not claimed any deduction for earlier assessment years and selected the assessment year 2006-07, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. For the assessment year 2005-06, XIUS India Ltd. suffered a loss. The loss suffered in the assessment year 2005-06 was carried over to set off against the income of the assessment year 2006-07. When the assessee selected the initial assessment year 2006-07, this Tribunal is of the con....