MS KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd, Pune V. ITO, Pune

ITA 1736/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0857 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO. 1 736 /PN/201 2 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 M/S. KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD., (KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD. SINCE MERGED) PLOT NO.35 & 36, MIDC PHASE I, RAJIV GANDHI INFOTECH PARK, HINJEWADI, PUNE . / APPELLANT PAN: AACCK6967F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(3), PUNE . / RESPONDENT WARD 11(3), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 3 0 . 11 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 . 11 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , PUNE , DATED 18 . 0 1 .201 2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 7 - 08 AGAINST ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 2 2 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVE RED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL.CIT IN ITA NO.551/PN/2014 AND ADDL.CIT VS. M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.736/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, ORDER DATED 08.10.2015 , WHICH IN TURN HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.70/PN/2012 AND ACIT VS. PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED IN ITA NO.72/PN/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, ORDER DATED 10.11.2015 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 7 AND REST OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 7 READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS E RRED IN ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.7,09,04,587/ - U/S10A TO RS.4,50,57,831/ - . THE DEDUCTION U/S OF RS.7,09,04,587/ - U/S10A TO RS.4,50,57,831/ - . THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A HAD BEEN CLAIMED FROM THE 'PROFITS AND GAINS' OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT APPLYING THE PROVISIONS FROM SEC.28 TO SEC. 44C ONLY, AS INTENDED AN D PROVIDED FOR BY SEC.10A, THE DEDUCTION BEING QUA - UNDERTAKING AND NOT QUA - ASSESSEE. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DEDUCTION BE GRANTED IN THE MANNER AND AT THE STAGE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN BEFORE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI RELATING TO AGGREGATION OF INCOME. 3 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND , POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HIMATSINGKA SEIDA LTD. (2006) 286 ITR 255 (KAR) , APPEAL AGAINST WHICH, HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AND 10B OF THE ACT WERE PARAM A TRIA. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 3 SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, WHETHER THE SAME IS TO BE COMPUTED BEFORE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATING T O EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE SETTING OFF OF THE AFORESAID BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME AT RS .7.35 CRORES, AGAINST WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AT RS.7.09 CRORES AND AGAINST BALANCE INCOME OF RS.26,40,767/ - , BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES WERE ADJUSTED AND THE INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS.NIL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS PERMISSIBLE OUT OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH COULD BE COMPUTED ONLY AFTER APPLYING ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, INCLUDING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY OUT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS WITHOUT FIRST SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, RE - COMPUTED. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.3 ONWARDS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT L ENGTH AND OBSERVED THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3.3 ONWARDS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT L ENGTH AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY, WAS HAVING ONLY ONE UNIT / UNDERTAKING, ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWABLE AND BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALSO RELATED TO THE SAME UNDERTAKING. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION HAD TO BE SET OFF AND ONLY ON THE BALANCE INCOME, IF ANY, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS TO BE COMPUTED. 5 . WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF SEQUENCES OF ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND THE ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES / UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, AROSE BEFORE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD . VS. ADDL.CIT & ANR. (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS BEFORE US, OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS IN RELATION TO THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION W.E.F. 01.04.2001. THE PERSONS INVOKING THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION UNDER THE ACT, AS COMPARED TO THE PRE - AMENDED PROVISION S OF THE SECTION, UNDER WHICH THE INCOME COMPRISING UNDER THE SAID SECTION WAS EXEMPT FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS WHETHER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT, IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS UNABSORBED LOSSES O R DEPRECIATION, BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS, THEN WHETHER THE SAID UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES / DEPRECIATION ARE TO BE ADJUSTED FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME BEFORE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT OR THE SAID LOSSES OR THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSSES / DEPRECIATION, WHICH CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF ASSESSEE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD DENIED THE CLA IM TO THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HIMASINGKA SEIDE LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE REFLECTS THAT THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL RELATED TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 1988 - 89 TO 1990 - 91 I.E. THE YEARS WHERE THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS FOR BEING EXEMPT FROM TOTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, WHEREIN THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED AND THE DEDUCT ION NOW IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE SAID INCOME BEING EXEMPT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (BOM), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - THE DEDUCTION UNDER S. 10A, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER S. 10A, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THIS IS ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.72 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES. A DISTI NCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI - A. SECTION 80A(1) STIPULATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFIED IN SS.80C TO 80U. S.80B(5) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER VI - A GROSS TOTAL INCOME TO MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDE R THE CHAPTER. WHAT THE REVENUE IN ESSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO TELESCOPE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI - A IN THE CONTENT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER S.10A, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT W ERE TO BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, SUCH AN APPROACH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THUS ITAT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES OF THE UNIT THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A OF THE ACT CA NNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.10A OF THE IT ACT. 28. THE SAID PROPOSITION OF LAW HAS FURTHER BEEN APPLIED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. M/S. GANESH POLYCHEM LTD. IN INCOM E TAX APPEAL NO.2083 OF 2012, ORDER DATED 25.02.2013 AND IN CIT VS. SCHMETZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (2012) 79 DTR (BOM) 356 AND ALSO BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CIT VS. ACE SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.687 OF 2012, ORDER DATED 18.02.2013. TH E MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO APPLIED THE SAID PROPOSITION IN VARIOUS CASES. ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 5 29. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD . VS. AO, (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC), WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER WHILE COMPUTING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I(6) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TREAT THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IN ORD ER TO ARRIVE AT DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80B(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ALSO REFERRED TO IN SECTION 80I(1) OF THE ACT, WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED IN MANNER PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT, WHICH PRE - SUPPOSES THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE ARRIVED AT AFTER ADJUSTING LOSSES OF OTHER DIVISION AGAINST PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND THE SAI D RATIO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS WHETHER THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES HAD TO BE ADJUSTED BEFORE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AND 10B OF THE ACT ARE AT PARAMETRIA. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSSES / DEPRECI ATION. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 6 . THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS LATER APPLIED WHILE DECIDING SIMILAR ISSUE IN PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED VS. ACIT (SUPRA) . THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.20 15 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT & ANR. (SUPRA) , OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 17. THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (2012) 348 ITR 72 (BOM) AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS TO BE COMPUTED BEFORE ADJUSTING BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED LOSSES / DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT & ANR. (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE A SSESSEE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE ALLOWING THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION LOSSES, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS TO BE FIRST ALLOWED AGAINST THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS AND IN CASE THERE ARE ANY LEFTOVER PROFITS, THEN THE SAME ARE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION / LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 7 . THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS IN RELATION TO THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS PARAMATRIA TO SECTION 10B O F ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 6 THE ACT AND HENCE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) AND PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED VS. ACIT (SUPRA) , IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. 8. ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE RATIO IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. HIMATSINGKA SEIDA LTD. (SUPRA), APPEAL AGAINST WHICH, HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT. BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , THE YEARS INVOLVED W ERE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1988 - 89 TO 1990 - 91 I.E. THE YEAR, WHERE THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS EXEMPT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN HIMATSINGKA SEIDA LTD. (SUPRA) IN PARA 27 OF THE ORDER AND THEREAFTER, APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY THE ORDER AND THEREAFTER, APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND PARA 27 OF THE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) AND PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LIMITED VS. ACIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT BEFORE SETTING UP OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRE CIATION. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IS FIRST ALLOWED AGAINST THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS AND IN CASE THERE ARE CERTAIN LEFT OVER PROFITS FOR THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL, THEN THE SAME ARE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION / LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO. 1 73 6 /PN/201 2 KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD 7 SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.1 AND 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED AND BALANCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED BEING ARGUMENTATIVE . 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH NOVEMBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE C IT (A) - I, PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I, PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE