CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (Karnataka High Court)- The High Court had to consider two issues for AY 2001-02 & onwards: whether (i) the loss incurred by a non-eligible unit & (ii) the brought forward unabsorbed loss & unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit has to be set-off against the profits of the eligible unit before allowing deduction u/s 10A/ 10B.
An appeal is a substantive right. The assessee should have a full opportunity to put forth his case and should be able to get relief, if any, in accordance with. It is difficult to sustain the assessee’s negligence. However, the assessee cannot also be let scot free. Now, he has preferred this appeal and the learned advocate for the Department has to appear and contest the matter. Hence, we deem it proper to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt I about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effecf from 11-5-2000. The show cause notice is issued on 9-11-2004. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and decision of this court, it cannot be disputed mat when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show-cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal of the Apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factoies Ltd.’s case (supra) has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in Gujarat Carbon & Industries’ case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it is clearly stated that class of persons who come under Section 71-A are not brought under net of Section 73 and show cause notice issued to the assessee invoking Section 73 are not maintainable.
CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Maxim India Integrated (Karnataka High Court)- When assessee has been availing benefits u/s 80HHE, and applies to the STPI Director for the change in status, it cannot be denied benefits of Sec 10A on the ground that it had sought permission for a new unit and not the conversion of the existing one.
CIT and Anr Vs R Hanumaiah Associates (Karnataka High Court) – No addition can be made on account of the unexplained investment on the basis of the DVO findings when the assessee satisfactorily explains that the difference was on account of the construction expenditure incurred, which was not considered by the DVO.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)- Facility of providing mobile telephone towers for various service provider – Referring to various judgements of the Apex Court and other courts, petitioner’s counsel contended that petitioner has already remitted the entire service tax due to the Centre.
High Court held that the scope of powers of the Dispute Resolution Panel (the DRP) under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is restricted to dealing with only those issues in respect of which variations are proposed as per the draft assessment order and not beyond.
This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 3-4-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) bearing 1TA No. 1020/Bang/08 for the assessment year 2005- 06.
The question of bar of limitation as well as setting aside the penalty is dependant on the leviability of excise duty on the impugned product. That is an issue which is to be decided by the Apex Court and the Apex Court is already seized of the matter. As the findings on that issue would have direct bearing in deciding the issues arisen in these appeals and all these issues arise out of the very same order, it is settled law that these issues cannot be bifurcated and decided by this court.
The contention that under section 80-I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be computed as if profit making industrial undertaking was the only source of income, has no merit.
