Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltuchennai v. M/S.eid Parry (India) Ltddare House

TCA No.51 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE ANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANTCA No.51 of 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax LTUChennai : Appellant versus M/s.EID Parry (India) LtdDare House,No.234, NSC Bose Road,Chennai 600 001 : Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai, dated 02.08.2011 in ITA No.705/Mds/2010. For Appellant:Ms.V.Pushpa,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar PadmanabhanRamamani Page 1 of 4 JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) TCA No.51 of 2012 The following questions of law were framed by this Court on 20.03.2012, while admitting the appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-1A without fully setting-off of unabsorbed depreciation of the past years even though the same had been set off against other income, ignoring the provisions of Section 80-1A(5) which clearly stipulated that for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80-1A, the eligible unit had to be treated as the only source of income of the assessee and therefore, the unabsorbed depreciation/ loss of the earlier years, even though they had been set off against the other income of the assessee, had to be notionally carried forward for determining the eligible profits of the undertaking? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim reducing the amount of unabsorbed depreciation in a revised statement, without filing a revised return, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of GOETZE INDIA PVT. LTD (284 ITR 323)?" 2. As regards Question No.1, the Court has, on the same day, recorded in paragraph 3 that the Revenue has fairly submitted that the question of law is covered by Velayudha Swamy Spinning Mills P Ltd vs. Page 2 of 4 TCA No.51 of 2012 ACIT (Madras)[1], and held against the Revenue. Ms.Pusha fairly states that the special leave petition was also dismissed, as reported in ACIT (Madras) vs. Velayudha Swamy Spinning Mills P Ltd[2]. 3. As regards Question No.2, in our view, this question of law will not arise in view of the settled position of law stated in answer to question No.1 mentioned above. (K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 11.07.2025 Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Notar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax LTU, Chennai 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, Chennai 1(2012) 340 ITR 477 Mad 2(2017) 244 taxmann. 0058 (SC) Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 TCA No.51 of 2012THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICEAND SUNDER MOHAN, J. (tar) TCA No.51 of 2012 11.07.2025