TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred in law and on the facts in holding the year of claiming deduction under section 80IA(5) as the initial assessment year by relying upon the case laws, which are still pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in holding that the initial assessment year u/s. 80IA(5) would mean the year of claim and not the year of commencement. 3. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both in facts and law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the case and relying upon the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Hiralal Ratanlal Vs. Sales Tax Officer AIR 1973 SC 1034, Assessing Officer held that in the case of the assessee, provisions of section 80-IA(5) are clearly applicable and held that assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under section 80- IA of the Act. 2.1 Further, Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 60,996/- as per the provisions of section 40(ia) of the Act holding that assessee has not deducted TDS while making payment of brokerage to one Sh. Shastri Ballabh Bhatt. Thus, total taxable income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 1,41,47,790/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,08,31,788/- vide his order dated 15.2.2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 to 2 relating to addition in dispute vide para no. 4 at page no. 3 to 5 of the impugned order. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- "4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and the judgments cited by the Ld. AR in favour of his client. In the case of Satbhav Engineering Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswami Spinning Mills (Supra), while holding that "we find that Section 80IA of the Act which has been substituted w.e.f. 1.04.2000 provides that where the GTI of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking from any eligible business referred to in sub-section (4), there shall, in accordanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year" alone are to be brought forward as stipulated in Section 80IA(5). The loss prior to the "initial assessment year" which has already been set-off cannot be brought forward and adjusted into the period of ten years from the "initial assessment year" as contemplated or chosen by the assessee ... This is the true import of Section 80IA(5)." In the light of the above judgment, if we consider the facts of the instant case, we find that there is no dispute as to eligibility of deduction u/s. 80IA( 1), but, the only dispute is whether computing provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 80IA would apply to the years earlier than A.Y. 2009-10 or not. When we read the above judgment, it becomes clear that the "initial assessment year" in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee can choose the period of claiming the deduction. Subsection (5) is a non-obstante clause which deals with the quantum of deduction (or an eligible business .... Thus, the fiction created is that the eligible business is the only source of income and the deduction would be allowed from the "initial assessment year" or any subsequent assessment year. It nowhere defines as to what is the "initial assessment year". Prior to 1.04.2000, the "initial assessment year" was defined for various types of eligible assessees u/s. 80IA(J2). However, after the amendment brought in statute by the Finance Act, 1999, the definition of "Initial Assessment Year" has been specifically taken away. Now, when the assessee exercises the option of choos....