Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Himatasingike Seide Ltd. on 4 August, 2006
15. Counsel for the revenue relied on the reasons given by the AO in
rejecting the Petitioner's contentions. It was argued that the fact that the
assessee had three units which were eligible for deduction under Sections
10A/10B of the Act, the fact of deduction being awaited in respect of profits
of two units only, without setting off the losses suffered in the third unit, was
not as clearly disclosed in the return of income as is sought to be argued by
the petitioner. Counsel for the revenue argued that the issue under
consideration was the computation of deduction allowable under Section
10B of the Act. For that purpose, he relied on Section 10-B (6) (ii) which
provided for carry forward and set off of losses pertaining to the 100 %
export oriented units eligible for deduction under the said section. When the
facts of the present cases were seen in the light of the provision of sub-
sections (3) to (8) of sub-section 10B, more particularly Section 10-B (6) (ii)
the losses of the units were to be set off against the profits of such eligible
unit. It was contended that this view was supported by the decisions relied
on by the AO, i.e. CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 0255 and of
the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Sword Global (I) P Ltd Vs. ITO 306
WP(C) No.7677/2011 Page 15
ITR (AT) 286. Therefore, the assessee was not correct in not setting off of
losses of one eligible unit against the profits of another eligible unit, which
is contrary to the scheme of Section 10B. This clearly constituted failure on
the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure, which necessitated
re-opening of assessment, under Sections 147/148.
Sword Global (I) (P) Ltd. (Formerly ... vs The Income-Tax Officer on 4 January, 2008
15. Counsel for the revenue relied on the reasons given by the AO in
rejecting the Petitioner's contentions. It was argued that the fact that the
assessee had three units which were eligible for deduction under Sections
10A/10B of the Act, the fact of deduction being awaited in respect of profits
of two units only, without setting off the losses suffered in the third unit, was
not as clearly disclosed in the return of income as is sought to be argued by
the petitioner. Counsel for the revenue argued that the issue under
consideration was the computation of deduction allowable under Section
10B of the Act. For that purpose, he relied on Section 10-B (6) (ii) which
provided for carry forward and set off of losses pertaining to the 100 %
export oriented units eligible for deduction under the said section. When the
facts of the present cases were seen in the light of the provision of sub-
sections (3) to (8) of sub-section 10B, more particularly Section 10-B (6) (ii)
the losses of the units were to be set off against the profits of such eligible
unit. It was contended that this view was supported by the decisions relied
on by the AO, i.e. CIT vs. Himatasingike Seide Ltd. 286 ITR 0255 and of
the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Sword Global (I) P Ltd Vs. ITO 306
WP(C) No.7677/2011 Page 15
ITR (AT) 286. Therefore, the assessee was not correct in not setting off of
losses of one eligible unit against the profits of another eligible unit, which
is contrary to the scheme of Section 10B. This clearly constituted failure on
the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure, which necessitated
re-opening of assessment, under Sections 147/148.