“4.The Above Referred Substantial Questions Oflaw Were Considered By A Division Bench Of This Courtin The Assessee's Own Case For The Earlier Assessmentyear In v. Deputycommissioner Of Income Tax, Reported In (2015) 92 Cch0098 Chenhc, And Decided In Favour Of The Assessee.the Operative Portion Of The Judgment Reads Asfoll

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVANand THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD T.C.A.No.189 of 2012 M/s.Prasad Productions (P) Ltd.,No.28, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam,Chennai 93. .. Appellant/Appellant The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Media Circle-I,Chennai. .. Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal'B' Bench, Chennai dated 30.09.2005 in ITA No.994/Mds/2004 forthe assessment year 1995-96 against the proceedings of theCommissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-IV, Chennai-600 034 made inC.No.1321 (02) / 2002-03/IV dated 09.03.2004 for the AssessmentYear 1995-1996 against the proceedings of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle, Chennai-34 made inGI.No.10012-P dated 28.03.2002 against the proceedings of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(6), Chennai-34 made in PA/GI No.AAACP3614Q dated 29.03.2000 for theAssessment Year 1995-96. (Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant /assessee, challenging the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.T.A.No.994/Mds/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96. 2.By order dated 10.07.2012, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionsof law: “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin not adjudicating on the preliminary issue ofthe validity of revision under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act when the Assessing Officer hasgranted deduction under Section 80 I of the IncomeTax Act on the basis of the directions given bythe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin law in holding that the losses incurred by theindustrial undertaking in the earlier years, whichwas adjusted against the income of other units inthe earlier assessment year has to be notionallycarried forward and set off against the income ofthe current assessment year for the purpose ofcomputing deduction under Section 80I of the Act?” 3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and thelearned standing counsel for the respondent jointly submittedthat the identical substantial questions of law were alreadyraised and decided in favour of the appellant / assessee, by aCo-ordinate Bench of this court in TCA Nos.2035, 2036, 2037,20329 & 2049 of 2008, by judgment dated 13.12.2018 in respect ofthe assessee's own case relating to subsequent assessment years.The relevant passage of the said judgment is profitably,extracted below: “4.The above referred substantial questions oflaw were considered by a Division Bench of this Courtin the assessee's own case for the earlier Assessmentyear in T.C.A.No.524 of 2008, dated 25.02.2015, inPrasad Productions Private Limited Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 92 CCH0098 ChenHC, and decided in favour of the assessee.The operative portion of the judgment reads asfollows: “8.The facts in the present case arealso identical to the above said decision ofthis Court that all the business undertakingsare wind mills and they have claimed thebenefit of deduction under Section 80IA of theIncome Tax Act for the Assessment years inquestion and for subsequent years as well. Having exercised their option and their losseshave been set off already against other incomeof the business enterprise, the assessee inthis appeal falls within the parameters ofSection 80IA of the Income Tax Act. In thedecision reported in (2012) 340 ITR 477[Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax] there appears to beno distinction on facts. “8.The facts in the present case arealso identical to the above said decision ofthis Court that all the business undertakingsare wind mills and they have claimed thebenefit of deduction under Section 80IA of theIncome Tax Act for the Assessment years inquestion and for subsequent years as well. Having exercised their option and their losseshave been set off already against other incomeof the business enterprise, the assessee inthis appeal falls within the parameters ofSection 80IA of the Income Tax Act. In thedecision reported in (2012) 340 ITR 477[Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax] there appears to beno distinction on facts. 9.Again in a batch of cases in T.C.(A)Nos.408 of 2012 by order dated 12.01.2015, thisCourt, following the decision reported in(2012) 340 ITR 477 [Velayudhaswamy SpinningMills Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax]held in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue. 10.We, therefore, taking note of thedecision rendered by this Court in the case ofVelayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (supra) and in abatch of cases in T.C.A.Nos.408 of 2012, areinclined to allow this Tax Case (Appeal),thereby set aside the order passed by theTribunal. 11.In view of the above, the question oflaw is answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue. This Tax Case (Appeal)stands allowed. No costs.” 5.Following the above decision, these appeals,filed by the assessee, are allowed and the substantialquestions of law are answered in favour of theassessee. No costs.” 4.In the light of the aforesaid decision, which issquarely applicable to the facts of the present case, thesubstantial questions of law are answered in favour of theappellant / assessee and against the respondent / Revenue.Accordingly, the Tax case Appeal is allowed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// vkr Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Media Circle -1 Chennai. Media Circle -1 Chennai. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-IV. Chennai-IV. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(6), Chennai-34. Central Circle I(6), Chennai-34. 5.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. 6.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle, Chennai-34. Media Circle, Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.11350 +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, S.R.No.11837 T.C.A.No.189 of 2012 AK(CO)SU(08/03/2022)