Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Iv v. M/S.sas Hotels & Enterprises Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.699 of 2015 Commissioner of Income TaxCentral IV, 108, NungambakkamHigh Road, Chennai 600 034. ...Appellant -vs- M/s.SAS Hotels & Enterprises Ltd.,No.3, Mangesh Street, T.NagarChennai 600 017. Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 01.03.2012 passed in ITANo.2080/Mds/2011, against the order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) -V, Chennai, dated 28.09.2011 made in AppealNo.CIT (A) - VI, IT No.191/2007-2008, against the order passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI (1), Chennai,dated 05.12.2007 for the assessment year 2005 - 2006. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthil KumarStanding Counsel for Income TaxDepartment JUDGMENT (The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.) This appeal is by the Revenue, raising the followingsubstantial questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inupholding the order of CIT (A), who directed the AssessingOfficer to ignore all depreciation loss from windmill https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ business prior to assessment year 200-01? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inholding the unabsorbed depreciation loss prior to initialassessment year could be notionally carried forward whilecomputing deduction under Section 80IA?" 2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel forthe Department. 3. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in LibertyIndia vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 and the decision in CIT vs Mewar Oiland General Mills Limited [2004] 271 ITR 311, a Bench of this Courthas already held in Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills P.Ltd. vs AssistantCommisisoner of Income Tax [2012] 340 ITR 477 (Mad) that once thelosses and other deductions have been set off against the income ofthe previous year, it should not be re-opened again for the purposeof computation of current year income under Section 80I or 80IA ofthe Act. Though the decision of this Court in Velayudhasamy SpinningMills has been taken by the Revenue to the Supreme Court and theSupreme Court has issued notice in the Special Leave Petition, wefollowed the decision in Velayudhasamy Spinning Mills in CIT vs.R.Yuvaraj reported in [2015] 57 Taxmann.Com 252 (Madras). The effectof the Supreme Court ordering notice in the Special Leave Petitiondoes not tantamount the wiping out the law laid down by this Court,which merely followed the earlier decision of the Supreme Court inLiberty India. Therefore, the questions of law raised are answeredagainst the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 4. In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vj2 To 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(1), Chennai-34. Company Circle VI(1), Chennai-34. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-V) Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'A'. Chennai Bench 'A'. Tax Case (Appeal) No.699 of 2015 GP (CO)PSI (30.09.2015)