IT : In terms of section 50C, higher sales consideration of property determined by DVO did not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under section 27(1)(c)
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 330 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd.
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 330 (Bombay)
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd.
IT: In absence of declaration of agricultural income from land, land sold could not be treated as agricultural land
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 327 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kunhaysu
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Calicut
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 327 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kunhaysu
v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Calicut
IT : Where there was no failure in complying with notices issued under section 143(2), assessee could not have been fastened with consequences that arise out of a best judgment assessment under section 144
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 22 (Bangalore - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A'
Mas Properties & Developers
v.
Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Mysore
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 22 (Bangalore - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'A'
Mas Properties & Developers
v.
Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Mysore
IT: Where assessee, film producer, paid compensation to exhibitors of its films which did not do well in theaters resulting loss to exhibitors, such payment not being to discharge any legal obligations but to protect assessee' s goodwill, would be treated as capital expenditure
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 79 (Chennai - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Seven Arts Films
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 79 (Chennai - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Seven Arts Films
IT: Though possibility of involvement of personal expenditure in foreign travelling expenses of directors could not be ruled out, disallowance, even if made on estimate basis, should be a fair and justifiable estimate considering surrounding circumstances
IT: Payment to hotel for boarding does not fall under section 194C
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 111 (Bangalore - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'B'
Ratnagiri Impex (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
IT: Payment to hotel for boarding does not fall under section 194C
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 111 (Bangalore - Trib.)
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'B'
Ratnagiri Impex (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
IT/ILT: SLP granted against order of High Court where it was held that in absence of any material on record showing that assessee bore significant risks and enjoyed some locational advantages, revenue authorities were not justified in making addition to assessee' s ALP by applying cost plus markup of 5 per cent on FOB value of goods exported to AE located abroad
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 249 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
v.
Li & Fung India (P.) Ltd.
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 249 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
v.
Li & Fung India (P.) Ltd.
Income tax - Whether if assessee does not claim Sec 80IA benefits in initial years, same can be claimed in subsequent years when conditions stipulated are fulfilled - YES: HC
AHMEDABAD : THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if assessee does not claim Sec 80IA benefits in initial years, same can be claimed in subsequent years when conditions stipulated are fulfilled. YES is the answer.
Facts of the case
The assessee concern is engaged in the business of forging and manufacturing of various types of auto parts. It had filed its return for the AY 2001-02, declaring total income of Rs.47,66,167/ -. It had also claimed deduction u/s 80I in the relevant year whereas the business was started on 25.09.1991. It was also contended by the assessee that it became entitled to deduction after purchasing the new machinery. However, AO rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal, CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal, Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the revenue and confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
Before HC, the Revenue' s counsel had contended that the Tribunal had committed error in allowing the claim of the assessee. It was further submitted that the Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) had not properly considered the material on record. Therefore, it was urged that the present appeals deserved to be allowed. On the other hand, assessee' s counsel had supported the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by HC in view of the concurrent findings of both the authorities, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. Therefore, it was urged that the present appeals deserved to be dismissed.
Held that,
++ while dismissing the appeals of the revenue, the Tribunal had observed that the CIT(A) had calculated the value of old machinery and new machinery from AY 1991-92 to 1995-96. The CIT(A) has considered the decision of Kerala High Court in CIT V Seeyon Plywood (56 Taxation 296), wherein the Court has held that if the assessee does not satisfy the conditions in the initial year and if he satisfies the conditions in subsequent years, then the benefit must be given from the year in which it satisfies the conditions and as per section 80I the assessee is entitled for deduction only for 10 years and not more than that. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of HC in the case of CIT Vs. Satellite Engineering Ltd. (113 ITR 208) and inCIT v. Suessin Textile Bearing Ltd. (135 ITR 443). It is not disputed by the Revenue that the condition that the value of old machinery should not exceed 20% of the total value of the machinery, was not fulfilled in the year A but the assessee has satisfied this condition during the years under consideration and therefore, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA in the year it fulfills the condition in view of the judicial pronouncement referred to above. Moreover, the assessee purchasing new machinery of sister concerns and hiring of machinery from sister concern is also entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA as held in CIT Vs. Nars Minerals Export Pvt. Ltd. (231 ITR 863). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, more particularly the assessee having satisfied all the conditions in order to avail benefit of Section 80IA, the CIT(A) in our view is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee and as such, we find no reason to disturb the same. The appeals of the Revenue thus fail;
++ in view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has rightly held that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions in order to avail benefit of Section 80IA. Apart from that, advocate for the revenue is not in a position to show how the findings of the Tribunal are bad in law and on facts. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeals are dismissed. Accordingly, the question of law posed in these appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
AHMEDABAD : THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if assessee does not claim Sec 80IA benefits in initial years, same can be claimed in subsequent years when conditions stipulated are fulfilled. YES is the answer.
Facts of the case
The assessee concern is engaged in the business of forging and manufacturing of various types of auto parts. It had filed its return for the AY 2001-02, declaring total income of Rs.47,66,167/ -. It had also claimed deduction u/s 80I in the relevant year whereas the business was started on 25.09.1991. It was also contended by the assessee that it became entitled to deduction after purchasing the new machinery. However, AO rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal, CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal, Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the revenue and confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
Before HC, the Revenue' s counsel had contended that the Tribunal had committed error in allowing the claim of the assessee. It was further submitted that the Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) had not properly considered the material on record. Therefore, it was urged that the present appeals deserved to be allowed. On the other hand, assessee' s counsel had supported the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal and submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by HC in view of the concurrent findings of both the authorities, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. Therefore, it was urged that the present appeals deserved to be dismissed.
Held that,
++ while dismissing the appeals of the revenue, the Tribunal had observed that the CIT(A) had calculated the value of old machinery and new machinery from AY 1991-92 to 1995-96. The CIT(A) has considered the decision of Kerala High Court in CIT V Seeyon Plywood (56 Taxation 296), wherein the Court has held that if the assessee does not satisfy the conditions in the initial year and if he satisfies the conditions in subsequent years, then the benefit must be given from the year in which it satisfies the conditions and as per section 80I the assessee is entitled for deduction only for 10 years and not more than that. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of HC in the case of CIT Vs. Satellite Engineering Ltd. (113 ITR 208) and inCIT v. Suessin Textile Bearing Ltd. (135 ITR 443). It is not disputed by the Revenue that the condition that the value of old machinery should not exceed 20% of the total value of the machinery, was not fulfilled in the year A but the assessee has satisfied this condition during the years under consideration and therefore, the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA in the year it fulfills the condition in view of the judicial pronouncement referred to above. Moreover, the assessee purchasing new machinery of sister concerns and hiring of machinery from sister concern is also entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA as held in CIT Vs. Nars Minerals Export Pvt. Ltd. (231 ITR 863). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, more particularly the assessee having satisfied all the conditions in order to avail benefit of Section 80IA, the CIT(A) in our view is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee and as such, we find no reason to disturb the same. The appeals of the Revenue thus fail;
++ in view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has rightly held that the assessee has satisfied all the conditions in order to avail benefit of Section 80IA. Apart from that, advocate for the revenue is not in a position to show how the findings of the Tribunal are bad in law and on facts. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeals are dismissed. Accordingly, the question of law posed in these appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment