Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 964 - AT - Income TaxDelayed PF & ESI contribution(s) - sum credited beyond the due date stipulated in the corresponding Acts - HELD THAT:- CIT-DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the assessee had very well credited the impugned sum(s) before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1). That being the case, hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Vijay Shree Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] squarely covers the issue in assessee’s favour. Assessment u/s 153A - Exclusion of Sales Tax Incentive from West Bengal State Government in computing taxable income under normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- Nothing comes in the way of the concerned assessee in seeking original claim of deduction in proceedings involving search assessment u/s. 153A as well. We thus express our concurrence with the CIT(A)’s impugned action entertaining the assessee’s foregoing additional ground seeking to treat its sales tax incentive subsidy as capital and not revenue receipt which had been erroneously recorded under the latter head in the computation of income. We make it clear that purpose of an assessment framed under the provision of the Act is to determine the correct taxable income than that based on estopple only since the Income Tax Act does not involve adversarial proceedings as per in V.W. Narayen [1971 (8) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] , S.N. Swarnnamal vs. CED [1972 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] & State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurya & Co [1982 (11) TMI 143 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Whether the impugned sales tax incentive subsidy sum(s) received under Notification No. 1460 dated 27.05.1994 issued by the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Units) Scheme are in the nature of a capital or revenue subsidy? - We find this latter issue to be no more res integra since the CIT(A) has taken note of various judicial precedents; including that of hon'ble jurisdictional high court, that this subsidy gives rise to capital receipt only. We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis and uphold the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge granting relief to assessee. Sec 115JB MAT computation - CIT-DR fails to dispute that once the impugned subsidy scheme has been held as capital and not a revenue item, the same does not form part of impugned MAT computation as well going by the judicial precedents taken note of in the lower appellate discussion. We quote in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons [1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT] that when this tribunal expresses its concurrence with the lower authorities conclusion in entirety, it may not take recourse to a detailed reasoning on its own. We thus uphold the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings on all these three aspects raised at Revenue’s behest. Excessive interest payment disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee had paid the interest sum(s) @ 12% and 11% in case of related and unrelated parties; respectively. Ld CIT-DR fails to dispute that there is no discussion at all in the assessment order indicating any comparison of market rate of interest vis-a- vis assessee’s interest @ 12% forming subject-matter of the impugned disallowance. We thus affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge for this precise reason only. Addition on account of stock discrepancy made in the course of assessment - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly granted relief to the assessee since finding no discrepancy in stock in principle. We thus affirm CIT(A)’s above findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition - Decided against revenue
|