Income Tax Appeal v. Order

Sharayu Khot. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, - 15…Appellant Versus M/s. Black & Veatch Constuling Pvt.Ltd.…Respondent ---------- Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant. Mr. Hiten Chande, i/b PDS Legal, for the Respondent. ---------- CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE : 7 February 2018 ORDER : 1. Heard. 2.This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax 1/4 4-ITXA-865-15.doc Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) challenges the order dated 2December 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(“Tribunal” for short). This Appeal relates to the assessmentyear 2007-08. 3.The Revenue has urges the following questions oflaw for our consideration:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recomputed the deduction under Section 10A the Act without reducing/setting off unabsorbed depreciation and broughtforward business losses? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct inholding that employee share of provident fund notdeposited within the period provided under the PFdeposited within the period provided under the PF 2/4 4-ITXA-865-15.doc Act is covered under the provisions of Section 43Bof the Act? 4. Regarding Question 1:- (a)Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing forthe Revenue, very fairly states that the issue raised herein standsconcluded against the Revenue. This he states by the decision ofthis Court in the Respondent-Assessee's case for the assessmentyear 2006-07 reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Black & Veatch Consulting (P.) Ltd.[1] and by the decision of theApex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. YokogawaIndia Ltd.[2]. (b)In the above view, question 1 as proposed does notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, notentertained. 192012)20 taxmann.com 727 (Bom.) 2 (2017)391 ITR 274 3/4 4-ITXA-865-15.doc 5. Regarding Question 2:- (a)Mr. Suresh Kumar very fairly states that the issueraised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and infavour of the Respondent-Assessee's case by the decision of thisCourt in Commissioner of Income-tax, (central), Pune Vs.Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.[3] (b)In the above view, question 2 as proposed does notgive rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, notentertained. 6.Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed, with no orderas to costs. [RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.] 4/4