TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred has erred in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of the assessee's 10A unit were not liable for set-off against the current year's profit of the same 10A unit by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT 10 vs. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1237 of 2011, without appreciation the difference that in the latter case the issue was set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of non-eligible 10A unit against the current profits of an eligible 10A unit whereas in the present case the unabsorbed brought forward depreciation and business losses of earlier years, set-off against the current profits of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unit, without appreciating that in the case of CIT -10, Mumbai vs. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.-A.Y.2005-06 in ITXA 3465 of 2010, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that there is no bar in Section lOB which prohibits the operation of Sections 70,71, 72 etc., unlike Section 801A (5) or Section 801 (6) and therefore, by this ratio, the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of the 10A unit have been rightly set off by the AO prior to computing deduction u/s.10A of the Act." "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the brought forward anabsorbed depreciation and business losses of the assessee's 10A unit were not liable forest off against the current year&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....77/-. This deduction was claimed for the business carried out by the Assessee at 12-13. 522, Nagarjun Nagar, Tanaka, Secunderabad, and the total income of the said unit was declared to the tune of Rs. 2,29,02,892/-. The Assessee claimed the deduction 10A of the Act which was not allowed on the facts that the Assessee transferred the old machinery from sister concern i.e M/s. Solix Enterprise Solution Ltd. and thereby violated the conditions as laid down u/s 10A(2)(iii) of the I.T. Act. The claim of the Assessee was also declined for the AY. 2002-03 because at that time there was no infrastructure facilities. Since, the claim of the Assessee u/s 10A was declined therefore, the AO completed the assessment by Assessing the income to the tune o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parties and perused the record. Initially the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction u/s 10A of the Act by virtue of order dated 21.12.2006. Therefore, the Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) in view of the order dated 07.07.2011 held that the using the old machines nowhere disentitled the assessee to raise the claim u/s 10A of the Act and it is also held that the claim of the assessee is entitled to be set off u/s.10A of the Act earlier to the claim of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and business loss. Undoubtedly, in view of the order dated 07.07.2011 the claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s 10A was accepted. Thereafter, an application for giving effect to the order was filed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s binding on the lower authorities and rectification is valid. The gist of the decision of Hon'ble court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramlal Babulal (supra) and in the case of Omega Sports & Radio Works (supra) is reproduced as under: CIT Vs. Ramlal Babulal It is true that the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court t taken a view contrary to the one taken by the Punjab &Haryana 1 Court, but in the presence of a definite opinion of this Court,: the s shall prevail and is binding on the functionaries working within territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The authorities by reference to opinion of another High Courts cannot say that the point is debate and thus is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The view of this Court a....