Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 445 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 36 (1)(iii) - Held that:- As the principal amount itself was in dispute which, according to the submission of the assessee was given to the above company for purchase of property and when agreement was not executed, the assessee made efforts for recovery of the amount in question and ultimately, after issuing a demand notice dated 30.03.2012 and notice dated 20.08.2011 (PB-208), the amount in question was returned to the assessee. Therefore, authorities below were not justified in making disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any justification to sustain the addition. We, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of claim of set off of brought forward business loss - Held that:- It was duty of the Assessing Officer to apply the relevant provisions of law and grant relief to the assessee instead of rejecting the claim of assessee by not mentioning the speculative loss in particular column of the e-return for assessment year 2010-11. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that authorities below were not justified in not allowing the claim of set off of brought forward speculative loss. The orders of authorities below are therefore, set aside and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward speculative loss for assessment year 2010-11 in assessment year under appeal of the amount in question.- Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance under section 10B - Held that:- It is admitted fact that assessee claimed deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2011-12. Same claim was made in preceding assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11 and the claim of assessee has been allowed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act after scrutiny assessments. In assessment year 2010-11, it was allowed under section 143(1). In assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order under appeal, re-opened under section 148, however by following the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of Lovlesh Jain (2011 (12) TMI 93 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), allowed the claim of assessee under section 10B of the Act wherein held that "When the assessee imported standard gold into India and then converted it into jewellery or ornaments and exported the ornaments, it amounts to exporting articles or things, conversion of standard assessee amounts to manufacture/production which qualifies for deduction under section 10A/10B of the Act". It, therefore, stands established that in preceding several assessment years, the Assessing Officer allowed exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act in favour of the assessee on the same facts and even later on in proceedings under section 148 of the Act, allowed similar claim under section 148/143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the revenue authorities should follow rule of consistency and should not have made disallowance under section 10B of the Income Tax Act in assessment year under appeal itself. - Decided in favour of assessee
|