Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2012 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (3) TMI 332 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Capital or revenue expenditure - There is no finding of CIT that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The question of “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2009 -TMI - 204642 - Delhi High Court) - the question of warranty claim was reopened in the assessment year 1999-2000 after an order u/s 263 of the Act It is noticed that the claim for deduction under Section 35DDA was made by the assessee for the first time in assessment year 2002-03. 1/5th of the amount payable under the voluntary retirement was allowed as a deduction - Held that: assessee had stated before the CIT and explained the position that an amount of Rs. 5,37,14,119/- was incurred under Section 35DDA in the assessment year 2002-03 and 1/5th thereof being Rs. 1,07,42,824/- was amortised and claimed and allowed as a deduction - Decided in favor of the assessee
|