DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Secova E-Services Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2740/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7514 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 115JB; 10B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I T.A. NO. 2740 /MDS/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 09 - 1 0 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 ( 1 ) , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK , 7 TH FLOOR, , 121, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034 . VS. M/S. SECOVA E - SERVICES LTD., MERIDIAN HOUSE, NO. 121/3, FIRST FLOOR, MANICKAM AVENUE, T.T.K. ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI 18. [PAN: AA H C S3 1 7 4 R ] ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S UPRIYO PAL , J CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN , A DVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 . 1 2 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 0 3 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 15 , CHENNAI DATED 17 . 0 6 .201 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 . THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] BEFORE SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND DEPRECIATION LOSS . I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 24.09.2009 ADMITTING NIL INCOME AND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT .14,40,759/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.11.2011 WAS PASSED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 R.W.S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 08.05.2014 . THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED OR ALLOWED AFTER ADJUSTING THE CARRIED FORWARD OF LOSSES/DEPRECIATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 1 47 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY SETTING OFF OF LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ACCORDING TO CIRCULAR 7 OF 2013. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE COMPUTATI ON OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANR. V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2011] 341 ITR 385, THE LD. CIT(A) A LLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 3 THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT IN WRONG TO DECIDE THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANR. V. YOKOGA WA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) BY IGNORING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HIMATASINGKE SEIDE LTD. 286 ITR 255, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT AS REPORTED IN 100 DTR 37. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE RECENT D ECISIONS IN DCIT V. AVT INFOTECH P. LTD. IN ITA NO. 143/MDS/2015 DATED 06.11.2015 AND ACIT V. CHETTINAD QUARTS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 57/MDS/2014 DATED 29.05.2015. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANR. V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD., WHICH WAS RECENTLY UPHELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8498 OF 2013 & ORS. DATED 16.12.2016 AND BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. K7 COMPUTING PVT. LTD. V. ITO IN I.T.A. NO. 434/MDS/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017, THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. DATA SOFTWARE RESEARCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN I.T.A. NO. 1837/MDS/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2015, WHICH WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY SETTING OFF OF LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. WHEN APPEALED, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANR. V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). BY FOLLOWING THE RECENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF .1,28,72,425/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEAR S PROFITS OF BUSINESS B EFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS ONLY AN EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WHAT IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS ONLY DEDUCTION AND NOT EXEMPTION. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF .94,89,193/ - BY SETTING OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS. 5.1 BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. PATSPIN INDIA LTD. 245 CTR 97, THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 5 CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY SET OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AGAINST CURRENT YEAR S PROFIT BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. 6. THE POINT AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SET OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST CURRENT YEAR S PROFIT OR NOT. ON SIMILAR FACTS IN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. DATA SOFTWARE RESEARCH COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN I.T.A. NO. 1837/MDS/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2015, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SCIENTIFIC ATLANDA TEC. P. LTD. (SUPRA) FOUND THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION NEED NOT BE SET OFF FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SWORD GLOBAL (I) P. LTD. (SUPRA). THIS DECISION WAS DELIVERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS TO PREFER A LARGER BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF SCIENTIFIC ATLANDA TEC. P. LTD. (SUPRA). SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF LARGER BENCH, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6.1 FURTHER, AS RE LIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, I N A RECENT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8498 OF 2013 & ORS DATED 16.12.2016 OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 10A, WHICH IS ANALOGOUS TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 10B OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 70, 72 AND 74 OF THE ACT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR APPLICATION. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE APEX COURT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2000 WITH EFFECT FR OM 1.4.2001; THE AMENDED SECTION 10A THEREAFTER AND ALSO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2001. I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 6 13. THE RETENTION OF SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 WOULD BE 18 MERELY SUGGESTIVE AND NOT DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT IS PROVIDED BY THE SECTION AS AMENDED, IN CONTRAST TO WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE UN - AMENDED SECTION. THE TRUE AND CORRECT PURPORT AND EFFECT OF THE AMENDED SECTION WILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED FROM THE LANGU AGE USED AND NOT MERELY FROM THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN RETAINED IN CHAPTER III. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD DEDUCTION IN SECTION 10A BY THE AMENDMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, AND IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY SE CTION 10A AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SECTION EMBODIES A CLEAR ENUNCIATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION TO ALTER ITS NATURE FROM ONE PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION TO ONE PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTIONS. 14. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO EX PRESSIONS EXEMPTION AND DEDUCTION , THOUGH BROADLY MAY APPEAR TO BE THE SAME I.E. IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ACT WOULD BE WHOLLY DIFFERENT. THE ABOVE IMP LICATIONS CANNOT BE MORE OBVIOUS THAN FROM THE CASE OF CIVIL APPEAL 19 NOS. 8563/2013, 8564/2013 AND CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 18157/2015, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY LOSS MAKING ELIGIBLE UNITS AND/OR BY NON - ELIGIBLE ASSESSEES SEEKING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES AGAINST PROFITS MADE BY ELIGIBLE UNITS. 15. SUB - SECTION 4 OF SECTION 10A WHICH PROVIDES FOR PRO RATA EXEMPTION, NECESSARILY INVOLVING DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF DOMESTIC SALES, IS ONE INSTANCE OF DEDUCTION PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENT. PROFITS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNIT PERTAINING TO DOMESTIC SALES WOULD HAVE TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS IN CHAPTER IV AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION 6 OF SECTI ON 10A, AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2003, GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ETC. COMMENCING FROM THE YEAR 2001 - 02 ON COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY ALSO VIRTUALLY WORKS AS A DEDUCTION WHICH HAS TO BE WOR KED OUT AT A FUTURE POINT OF TIME, NAMELY, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF TAX HOLIDAY. THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IN CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT CAN BE UNDERSTAND BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY SUCH REFERENCE OR MENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN A REPETITION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED IN SECTION 10A. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS WOULD BE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND REDUNDANT IF DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A WERE TO BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF OPERATION OF CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT. THE RETENTION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 80HHC AND 80HHE, DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 7 10A, IN OUR VIEW, INDICATES THAT SOME ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE SECTION 10A UNITS, NOT CONTEMP LATED BY SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE, WAS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. SUCH A BENEFIT CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY A LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAGES FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A AND 80HHC AND 80HHE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFEREN T. THIS IS THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE CASE WHICH WE WOULD NOW LIKE TO TURN TO. 16. FROM A READING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A IT IS MORE THAN CLEAR TO US THAT THE DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN IS QUA THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING OF AN ASSESSEE S TANDING ON ITS OWN AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER ELIGIBLE OR NON - ELIGIBLE UNITS OR UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS GIVEN BY THE ACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING AND RESULTANTLY FLOWS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO MORE THAN C LEAR FROM THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR NO. 794 DATED 9.8.2000 WHICH STATES IN PARAGRAPH 15.6 THAT, THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 10A AND 10B SHALL BE OF THE UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN SPECIFIED ZONES OR 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKINGS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND THIS SHALL NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THESE ZONES OR UNITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROVISION. 17. IF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDE [FIR ST PROVISO TO SECTIONS 10A(1); 10A (1A) AND 10A (4)] THAT THE UNIT THAT IS CONTEMPLATED FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING AND THAT IS ALSO HOW THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CIRCULAR OF THE DEPARTMENT (NO.794 DATED 09.08.2000) 22 UNDERSTOO D THE SITUATION, IT IS ONLY LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE MADE INDEPENDENTLY AND, THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE STAGE OF DETERMINATION OF ITS PROFITS AND GAI NS. AT THAT STAGE THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES UNDER OTHER HEADS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR SET OFF AND CARRY FORWARD CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 70, 72 AND 74 OF THE ACT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR APPLICATION. THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 10A THEREFORE WOULD BE PRIOR T O THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXERCISE TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT FOR ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE SOMEWHAT DISCORDANT USE OF THE EXPRESSION TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION 10A HAS AL READY BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER AND IN THE OVERALL SCENARIO UNFOLDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A THE AFORESAID DISCORD CAN BE RECONCILED BY UNDERSTANDING THE EXPRESSION TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN SECTION 10A AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING . I.T.A. NO . 27 40 /M/ 16 8 18. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE ANSWER THE APPEALS AND THE QUESTIONS ARISING THEREIN, AS FORMULATED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS ORDER, BY HOLDING THAT THOUGH SECTION 10A, AS AMENDED, IS A PROVISION FOR DEDUCT ION, THE STAGE OF DEDUCTION WOULD BE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT AND NOT AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VI. ALL THE APPEALS SHALL STAND DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGL Y. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE OVERWHELMING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION NEED NOT BE SET OFF FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. THUS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 15 TH MARCH, 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 15 . 0 3 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.