CIT v. V.M. Salgaonkar & Brothers Ltd. & Anr.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 2346 (Bom-HC) : (2012) 046 (I) ITCL 0604 : (2012) 253 CTR 0059 : (2012) 072 DTR 0369 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Deduction under section 80HHC--ComputationTreatment of unclaimed depreciation--Depreciation has to be allowed to assessee while working out deductions under section 80HHC and also while working out income under the head 'Business' even if not claimed by assessee in the return of the income. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80HHC Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Deduction under section 80HHC--ComputationTreatment of loss from export of trading goods--While computing profit under section 80HHC(3)(c)(i) the profit determined of trading goods has to be reduced from composite profit and if there was loss the same would be adjusted. Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80HHC(3) IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT A. P. LAVANDE & R.P. SONDUR BALDOTA, JJ. CIT v. V.M. Salgaonkar & Brothers Ltd. & Anr. ITA Nos. 5 to 7 of 2002 A.Y. 1994-95 to 1996-97 27 March, 2012 Decision: In assessees favour. Appellantby : Asha Desai, Respondent No. 1 by : P.J. Pardiwalla with A.F. Diniz, JUDGMENT *R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.* These three appeals are filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeals are directed against the order dated 28-9-2001 passed by Tribunal allowing the appeals by respondent No. 1. Since all the three appeals raise common questions of law, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Five questions of law were raised by the revenue in these appeals. However, on 10-6-2002, the appeals were admitted only on two questions. Subsequently on applications filed by the Revenue, this court by the order dated 19-7-2005 has admitted one more question. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that admitting the third question by order dated 19-7-2005 amounts to sitting in appeals over the order dated 10-6-2002. There is no merit in this contention because, order dated 10-6-2002 does not decide any issue on merits and if it is brought to the notice of the court that an additional question needs to be admitted, then it is open to this court to do so. Moreover, the assessee has not challenged the order dated 19-7-2005. Hence, the objection raised for entertaining the appeals cannot be entertained. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2012 TaxPub(DT) 2346 (Bom-HC) : (2012) 046 (I) ITCL 0604 : (2012) 253 CTR 0059 : (2012) 072 DTR 0369

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Deduction under section 80HHC--ComputationTreatment of unclaimed depreciation--Depreciation has to be allowed to assessee while working out deductions under section 80HHC and also while working out income under the head 'Business' even if not claimed by assessee in the return of the income.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80HHC

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 32

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Deduction under section 80HHC--ComputationTreatment of loss from export of trading goods--While computing profit under section 80HHC(3)(c)(i) the profit determined of trading goods has to be reduced from composite profit and if there was loss the same would be adjusted.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80HHC(3)

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

A. P. LAVANDE & R.P. SONDUR BALDOTA, JJ.

CIT v. V.M. Salgaonkar & Brothers Ltd. & Anr.

ITA Nos. 5 to 7 of 2002

A.Y. 1994-95 to 1996-97

27 March, 2012

Decision: In assessees favour.

Appellantby : Asha Desai,

Respondent No. 1 by : P.J. Pardiwalla with A.F. Diniz,

JUDGMENT

R.P. Sondur Baldota, J.

These three appeals are filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeals are directed against the order dated 28-9-2001 passed by Tribunal allowing the appeals by respondent No. 1. Since all the three appeals raise common questions of law, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Five questions of law were raised by the revenue in these appeals. However, on 10-6-2002, the appeals were admitted only on two questions. Subsequently on applications filed by the Revenue, this court by the order dated 19-7-2005 has admitted one more question. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that admitting the third question by order dated 19-7-2005 amounts to sitting in appeals over the order dated 10-6-2002. There is no merit in this contention because, order dated 10-6-2002 does not decide any issue on merits and if it is brought to the notice of the court that an additional question needs to be admitted, then it is open to this court to do so. Moreover, the assessee has not challenged the order dated 19-7-2005. Hence, the objection raised for entertaining the appeals cannot be entertained.