|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1749 Records
-
2015 (9) TMI 1659 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(4) - profits derived from its unit located at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, an industrially backward area specified in 8th Schedule to the Act - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue relating to disallowance of deduction u/s.80IB(4) has been recurring every year from Assessment Year 2005-06 onwards. The Assessing Officer has been disallowing deduction u/s.80IB(4) in all the aforesaid assessment years on the same ground. In Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2008-09 the CIT(A) upheld the findings of AO on the issue, whereas in Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 the CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(4). Against the findings of the CIT(A) the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2008-09 and the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
Since the issue raised in the impugned assessment year is identical and no change in the facts and circumstances have been pointed out by either sides, we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the order of the Tribunal [2015 (2) TMI 1317 - ITAT PUNE] . Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 7 in the appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of the commission expenses claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee has stated at the bar that the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer are now available with the assessee and the same can be furnished, if an opportunity is granted. We deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to assessee to file the necessary documents in support of the claim. The Assessing Officer after considering the documents furnished by the assessee shall decide the issue afresh, in accordance with law. This ground of appeal of assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1658 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80 P(2) (a) (i) denied - AO opined that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction that the activity of the appellant was covered by Section 2 (24) (vii)(a) which requires the inclusion of profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society - Whether the benefit of deduction, under Section 80 P(2) (a) (i) could be denied to the assessee on the footing that, though the appellant was said to be a Co-operative Society, it was in fact a co-operative bank, within the meaning as assigned to such bank under Part V of the BR Act? - HELD THAT:- There is a seriously disputed question of fact which the Authorities under the IT Act have taken upon themselves to interpret in the face of the BR Act prescribing that in the event of a dispute as to the primary object or principal business of any co-operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and(ccvi) of Section 56 of the BR Act, a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final, would require the dispute to be resolved by the Reserve Bank of India, before the authorities could term the assessee as a co-operative bank, for purposes of Section 80 P of the IT Act.
Any opinion expressed therefore is tentative and is not final. The view expressed by this court BANGALORE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [2014 (6) TMI 913 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] however, as to the assessee being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank in terms of Section 80P (4) of the IT Act, shall hold the field and shall bind the authorities unless held otherwise by the Reserve Bank of India. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1657 - ITAT JAIPUR
Undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) - surrender of income - case was scrutinized U/s 153A read with Section 143(3) - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that besides statement U/s 132(4), no incriminating documents were found during the course of search including undisclosed cash/assets as revealed from the assessment order of the assessee. The search was conducted on 27-28/08/2008 and statement was recorded u/s 132(4) on 28/08/2008.
Copy of statement was provided by the AO on 13/3/2009 even various requests had been made by the assessee before the DDIT(In) to provide the copy of statement. After considering the assessee’s own statement and copy of seized material, he decided to retract the statement given u/s 132(4) on 31/3/2009, which was supported by the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 31/3/2009.
The Coordinate Bench has considered the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in case of Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal [2013 (8) TMI 936 - ITAT JAIPUR] in group cases and held that disclosure taken U/s 132(4) during course of search under pressure or duress where no incriminating documents/unrecorded valuables were found is to be held invalid and cannot be sustained. The assessee filed affidavit on 31/3/2009 before the AO but he remained silent on the face of it and had not carried out any inquiry to verify the correctness of the affidavit. AO also had not cross examined on the points of retraction and not asked to produce any evidence.
It is held by the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statement recorded U/s 132(4) has evidentiary value but rebuttable. In CBDT circular No. F.NO. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) does not support any disclosure made U/s 132(4), in absence of any incriminating document/undisclosed assets. Therefore, we upheld the order of the ld CIT(A). - Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1656 - ITAT JAIPUR
Undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) - case was scrutinized u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that besides statement u/s 132(4), no incriminating documents were found during the course of search including undisclosed cash/assets as revealed from the assessment order of the assessee. The search was conducted on 27-28/08/2008 and statement was recorded u/s 132(4) on 27/08/2008.
Copy of statement was provided by the AO on 13/3/2009 even various requests had been made by the assessee before the DDIT(In) to provide the copy of statement. After considering the assessee’s own statement and copy of seized material, he decided to retract the statement given u/s 132(4) on 31/3/2009, which was supported by the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 31/3/2009.
The Coordinate Bench has considered the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in case of Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal [2013 (8) TMI 936 - ITAT JAIPUR] in group cases and held that disclosure taken U/s 132(4) of the Act during course of search under pressure or duress where no incriminating documents/unrecorded valuables were found is to be held invalid and cannot be sustained.
The assessee filed affidavit on 31/3/2009 before the AO but he remained silent on the face of it and had not carried out any inquiry to verify the correctness of the affidavit. AO also had not cross examined on the points of retraction and not asked to produce any evidence. It is held by the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statement recorded U/s 132(4) has evidentiary value but rebuttable. In CBDT circular No. F.NO. 286/2/2003- IT(Inv) does not support any disclosure made U/s 132(4), in absence of any incriminating document/undisclosed assets. Therefore, we upheld the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1655 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of suit - HELD THAT:- Special leave Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous - If as and when the suit is restored, the Petitioner may take appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1654 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80P(2) (a) (i) - assessee is said to be a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act, 1956 - scope of amendment - Whether the benefit of deduction, under Section 80 P (2) (a) (i) of the IT Act, could be denied to the assessee on the footing that, though the appellant was said to be a Co-operative Society, it was in fact a co-operative bank, within the meaning as assigned to such bank under Part V of the BR Act.? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee in M/S. BANGALORE COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [2015 (11) TMI 802 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] A Co-operative bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act includes the primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural rural development bank. The Legislature did not want to deny the said benefit to a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co- operative agricultural and rural development bank. They did not want to extend the said benefit to a co-operative bank which is exclusively carrying on banking business i.e., the purport of the amendment. If the assessee is not a Co-operative bank carrying on exclusively banking business and if it does not possess a license from the Reserve Bank of India to carry on business, then it is not a Co-operative bank. It is a Co-operative society which also carries on the business of lending money to its members which is covered under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) i.e., carrying on the business of banking for providing credit facilitates to its members. The object of the aforesaid amendment is not to exclude the benefit extended under Section 80P(i) to the society
There is a seriously disputed question of fact which the Authorities under the IT Act have taken upon themselves to interpret in the face of the BR Act prescribing that in the event of a dispute as to the primary object or principal business of any co-operative society referred to in clauses (cciv), (ccv) and (ccvi) of Section 56 of the BR Act, a determination thereof by the Reserve Bank shall be final, would require the dispute to be resolved by the Reserve Bank of India, before the authorities could term the assessee as a co-operative bank, for purposes of Section 80 P of the IT Act.
Any opinion expressed therefore is tentative and is not final. The view expressed by this court, however, as to the assessee being a co-operative society and not a co-operative bank in terms of Section 80P (4) of the IT Act, shall hold the field and shall bind the authorities unless held otherwise by the Reserve Bank of India. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1653 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Assessee's failure to comply with the relevant notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1) - HELD THAT:- The order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the CIT(A) speaks that the assessee replied to the notice vide letter dated 7.9.2011 and subsequently, in compliance with the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(b), the assessee also sought the adjournment on the ground of fact that the assessee’s representative would be busy in the month of September on account of tax audit.
The tax audit and other documental work would be completed. In the said circumstances, the assessee complied with each notice issued by the AO. Subsequently, the assessment was completed vide order dated 26.12.2011 which speaks that the assessee attended the hearing from time to time and the case was also discussed with them.
The situation speaks that the assessee filed the details before the AO and thereafter the assessment order dated 26.11.2011 has been finalized. This can be considered as sufficient compliance and the default committed, if any, earlier has been ignored by the AO. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) is not liable to be leviable - also reasonable cause on account of busy in the month of September on account of tax audit is apparent on record. Penalty deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1652 - ITAT INDORE
Revision u/s 263 - Nature of land sold and the cash deposited in the bank account - capital asset or agricultural land - HELD THAT:- From record it is clear that the AO made the investigation with regard to sale of the land and the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee and family members. After making necessary inquiries, the AO accepted the returned income. He has also recorded that the land sold was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14).
The assessee submitted an agreement before the Assessing Officer which he has duly taken into cognizance and accepted the contents of the same as genuine. As per this agreement, the assessee has sold 5.35 hectares of land which he agreed to sell at ₹ 4,51,000/- per bigha. He has received cash of ₹ 1,50,000/- as advance on 6.10.2007 and cash of ₹ 55,50,000/- on 15.10.2007. The balance amount was to be received by 15.1.2008 and then assessee was bound to do registration in purchaser's name or in any person's name whom the purchaser wanted to get it registered. The assessee submitted this agreement before the AO which he has duly apprised and accepted the contents as true to explain the transaction in the assessee's bank account as he has not made any addition to that effect. In such a situation, any contrary view taken by the CIT with regard to the contents of the agreement for sale of the land shall amount to change in the view on the same issue.
CIT himself was not sure about these transactions and he directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue and make necessary inquiry and investigation and after ascertaining all the facts take decision as per law. This itself shows that the CIT himself was not sure regarding the erroneous of the order of the AO. AO has adopted a plausible view and the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1651 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s. 271D - receiving loans in cash - bonafide reasons for not furnishing complete details before the tax authorities - assessee received loans from Mr. Kashinath Tapuriah, which is in contravention of the provisions of section 269-SS - alternative addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Assessee has bonafide reasons for not furnishing complete details before the tax authorities. Therefore in the interest of substantial justice, the matter deserves to be set aside to the file of the AO, who is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law.
In so far as penalty proceedings u/s. 271D are concerned, if an addition is made u/s. 68 of the Act, by treating it as non-genuine cash credit, it needs to be reconsidered as to whether the Assessing Officer can invoke provisions of section 269SS so as to levy penalty. Since the quantum proceedings are set aside the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh, after making a fresh assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1650 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Application u/s 12AA rejected - Tribunal held that on the grounds indicated as the application could not be rejected, directed for grant of registration under section 12A - HELD THAT:- If the assessment made and the reasons given by the learned competent authority in the order passed rejecting the application under section 12AA(1) of the Income Tax Act, is perused, we find that the application has been rejected on merits after considering various transactions and activities of the Trust in question and not based on the activities of the Trust.
That being so, the Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the law laid down in the case of DPR Charitable Trust (2011 (8) TMI 1136 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1649 - ITAT MUMBAI
Scope of scrutiny in cases selected under CASS - conversion the limited scrutiny in to unlimited - revised ground - CBDT letter dated 23.05.2007 - approval of the Pr.CIT/DIT for taken up for comprehensive scrutiny - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the notice in this case was issued on 20.08.09 whereas the instruction of CBDT regarding the wider scrutiny was issued on 08.09.2010 and that the said circular was applicable prospectively and not retrospectively, however, it is noted that the said instruction of 2010 has been passed in reconsideration of instruction dated 23.05.2007. Under such circumstances, the instruction of 2007 was operative on the date of issue of notice. The Ld. D.R. has not submitted any evidence on the file that the AO had taken the necessary approval of ACIT/JCIT for widening the scope of inquiry.
The action of the AO in widening the scope of the inquiry without obtaining the necessary permissions as per the Board’s instruction was without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly set aside and consequently the additions made beyond the scope of AIR information are ordered to be deleted. The assessee’s appeal succeeds on technical/legal ground taken by the assessee vide revised ground of appeal.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1648 - SUPREME COURT
Appellant’s election as a Councilor of the Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 76 - Time limitation prescribed under Section 33 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - whether the election petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant under Section 33 (1) of the Act before the Chief Judge is within limitation as prescribed under Section 33 (1) of the Act?
Held that:- The period of 10 days prescribed for filing the election petition begins from "the date" on which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available for sale or inspection. In other words, the starting point of limitation for filing the election petition for counting 10 days is “the date" on which the list prescribed under clause (k) of Section 28 of the Act was available for sale or inspection. Therefore, in order to see as to when the list was prepared and made available for sale or inspection, it is necessary to read Section 28 (k) of the Act - if the State Election Commissioner has failed to frame the Rules for proper implementation of the functions set out in Section 28 (k) of the Act and due to that reason, there appears to be some kind of ambiguity noticed in its interpretation, then, such provision should be interpreted as far as possible in a manner which may benefit the elected candidate rather than the election petitioner.
On which date such list was available for sale or inspection to the voter of the ward? - Held that:- There is no hesitation in holding that the list prescribed under Section 28 (k) was made available to all the parties including the voter of the ward in question on 17.02.2012 by the Returning Officer - the list prescribed under Section 28(k) was available for inspection and sale to the voters of the ward in question on 17.02.2012. In view of this finding, the limitation to file election petition would begin from 17.02.2012 and it will be up to 27.02.2012. In other words, period of limitation of 10 days prescribed for filing the election petition in Section 33 (1) of the Act would begin from 17.02.2012 and it would be up to 27.02.2012.
The legislative intention, appears to be clear leaving no ambiguity therein by including Section 28 (k) only and excluding Section 10 and 32 in Section 33 (1).
The election petition filed by respondent No.1 out of which this appeal arises was barred by limitation and hence it should have been dismissed as being barred by limitation.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1647 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Scheme of amalgamation - First Motion petition under Section 391 to 394 read with Section 100 to 104 of the Companies Act, 1956 - eight are transferor companies and the ninth is the transferee company - HELD THAT:- All the shareholders of all companies / applicants are stated to have given their consent. It is also stated that the applicants do not have any secured creditors. All the unsecured creditors are also stated to have been given their consent.
Exemption from meeting is also sought.
Arguments heard. Orders reserved.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1646 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of criminal proceedings - Surprise inspection of unaccounted money - Bribe - specific contention put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the petitioner has demanded and accepted bribe from District Managers, TASMAC - seizure memo not prepared - whether in the absence of seizure memo, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed? - Held that:- From a close reading of Section 461 of Cr.P.C., it is easily discernible that mere failure on the part of the Investigating Agency in preparing seizure memo does not vitiate the proceedings - In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer has not prepared any seizure memo with regard to tainted money. Only on that basis, present petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Calendar Case No. 3 of 2014. It has already been pointed out that the irregularity put forth on the side of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of Section 461 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Failure to prepare seizure memo is nothing but a flimsy mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer.
Supreme Court in the case of KHET SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2002 (3) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], made clear that if there is any irregularity in preparing seizure memo, it would not belittle or vitiate the case of the prosecution.
In the instant case, as stated in many places, with regard to seizure of tainted money from the petitioner, seizure memo has not been prepared. It is nothing but a flimsy mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer, but at the same time, the Court has to look into the statements alleged to have been given by some District Managers, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that most of them have given bribe to the petitioner - It has already been pointed out that mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in preparing seizure memo would not vitiate the entire proceedings. Further, as per the decision referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seizure memo can be used as a corroborative evidence. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Since seizure memo can be used as a corroborative evidence, mere omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in preparing the same would not militate the case of the prosecution.
Petition dismissed.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1645 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on fixed asset of assessee trust - HELD THAT:- Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (1992 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) relied on by the AO while making the disallowance is not applicable to a charitable organization, like the assessee in the present case which is registered u/s 12A of the Act, since it pertains to the claim of depreciation under the provisions of section 35 of the Act. As per the proposition laid down in the case of DIT (E) vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1992 (7) TMI 331 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] expenditure on acquisition of depreciable asset was treated as application of income of the trust in the year of acquisition, depreciation is allowable in subsequent years.
Disallowance of carry forward of deficit - amount was claimed as set-off against the accumulated carried forward deficit of earlier years - HELD THAT:- It is a settled issue that any surplus amount of the current year can be set-off against the brought forward deficit of the earlier years and the same view was even supported by judgment of CIT vs. Institute of Banking [2003 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Considering the same, CIT (A) has rightly adjudicated the issue by granting relief to the assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1644 - ITAT MUMBAI
Validity of Assessment U/s 143(3) read with section 154 passed by successor AO - AO has reviewed his own order without properly assuming jurisdiction and hence, the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 on the second occasion i.e. on 18.02.2014 is illegal and void ab- initio - HELD THAT:- It is well-settled that there cannot be two assessments in respect of total income of an assessee in one and the same A.Y. The assessee cannot be assessed twice over for the same A.Y. by framing two assessments, because there cannot be double taxation of the same income. During the existence of first order dated 16.09.2013, the second order dated 18.02.2014 could not have been passed and if passed, the same is non est. The two orders cannot exist at the same time. In this connection, I find merit in the appellant's plea [based on judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Classic Share & Stock Braking Services Ltd. (2013 (3) TMI 516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that after having passed order dated' 16.09.2013 giving effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT, the impugned assessment order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the AO is totally illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, there is no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio and the same is, therefore, annulled - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (9) TMI 1643 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition treating the amount of share application money received as income of the assessee - Held that:- The statement of Bank of Baroda of Satco reflecting the payment of four cheques to STSPL for sale of its own investment/shares of stock exchange was also filed before the lower authorities. Our attention was also invited to the contract note of Satco dated 3-9-2007, 4-9-2007, 5-9-2007 & 7-9-2007 reflecting the sale of shares/investments by STSPL on the stock exchange with trade date and also the order number, order time, trade number, trade time, name of shares, quantity, rate, service tax, STT charges, total amount of settlement, settlement period etc. Demat account of STSPL with Satco-CDSL showing debit of investment/shares sold was also placed on the record. The STSPL audited annual accounts, computation of income, assessment order under section 143(3) for assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-2010 duly reflected and the aforesaid amounts received from Satco and paid by STSPL towards 50% share application money was also placed on record.
No justification in the addition made by the AO in respect of share capital received by the assessee for which not only identity but the source and genuineness was duly established. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1642 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - disallowance of loss on sale of assets - change of opinion - Held that:- Re-assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed for the reason that the proceedings u/s 147 has been initiated merely on change of opinion.
As already seen that, while completing the original assessment, the AO has made enquiries with regard to the details of loss on sale of assets and further the details of the customs duty on the plant & machinery debited by the assessee in P & L account as the asset was not existing during the year. Thus we notice that the assessing officer has applied his mind on the impugned issue and has taken a view. On perusal of the reasons recorded by AO for initiating the re-assessment proceedings, we notice that the above said details were available while completing the assessment u/s 143(3). AO, on a mere change of opinion, has issued the notice for re-assessment. It is not permissible for the AO to resort to proceedings u/s 147 merely on change of opinion.
We notice that the AO has reopened the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence it is imperative on the part of the assessing officer to show that the conditions specified in the first proviso to sec. 147 are complied with. However, the AO has failed to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
We are of the view that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 has not been validly initiated because the same has been initiated merely on a change of opinion without any fresh material coming into the possession of the AO. We, therefore, hold that the reassessment proceedings are invalid and consequently the order of reassessment is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1641 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Waiver of penalty u/s 10A of Central Sales Tax Act - misuse of form-C - violation of terms and conditions of central registration certificate - penalty was deleted by taking a view that the generator sets, which were being exported was the part of the machine and the assessee was not liable to pay any tax on it being an item under its registration certificate - Held that:- This view has been settled by this Court in the case of Majhola Distillery & Chemical Works Pilibhit vs. C.S.T. reported in 2005 UPTC 318 wherein this Court has held that the generator set was purchased by the assessee for the purpose of running the plant and machinery under the bonafide belief that it would be included in the registration certificate.
The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1640 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - receipt as sales tax benefit under the power policy of the State Government for installing windmills in the Maharashtra State - Sales Tax benefit is not an income derived from the business of the industrial undertaking, allowing the same resulted in excess deduction u/s. 80IA which in turn resulted in short levy of tax - Held that:- Reasons for the reopening of the completed assessment have been duly considered by the AO while making the original assessment order. Therefore, it is clear that no new facts have come to the notice of the AO for reopening a completed assessment.
In so far as the claim of the Revenue that sales tax subsidy has no direct nexus with the business of the assessee has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2015 (9) TMI 1639 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal has held that the amount of sales tax subsidy is directly arising from the business of the assessee, therefore, the decision in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and the decision CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 521 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have been correctly relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
............
|
