Itxa/288/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 288 OF 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)… Appellant V/s. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation … Respondent ----- Mr. N. C. Mohanty for the AppellantMr. Rohan Deshpande I/b Mihir Naniwadekar for the Respondent. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE : 05[th] JULY, 2018 P.C.: .This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”)challenges the order dated 05.03.2015 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(“Tribunal”). 2This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2007-2008. 3Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Revenue urges the followingquestion of law for re-consideration. “ Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing carry forward of deficit of Rs.40,45,02,295/- to be set off against the income of the subsequent years as applicable of income under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, without appreciating that it would tantamount to double deduction of the expenditureas application of income?” 4We find that the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 of the Tribunal haswhile allowing the appeal followed the decision of this Court in the RespondentAssessee's own case in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) V/s. MaharashtraIndustrial Development Corporation (MIDC) in Income Tax Appeal No. 2652 of2011 decided on 20.03.2013 to dismiss the Revenue's Appeal for the Assessmentyear 2005-06. Further for the subsequent assessment year viz Assessment year2008-09, this Court has dismissed the Revenue's Appeal on identical issue inIncome Tax Appeal No. 2506 of 2013 decided on 07.06.2016. 5In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to thesubstantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 6Hence, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)