Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 877 - AT - Income TaxDeduction under section 80IB disallowed - CIT(A) excluded from the profits eligible for deduction under sect ion 80IB, i.e. Rebate on Central Sales Tax payable as per Schedule 10 of Pilerne Unit and Commission on High Sea Sales payable as per Schedule 11 of other operational income - Held that:- By considering the totality of the facts, we restore both the issues to the file of Assessing Officer for considering it afresh regarding eligibility of these two items, deduction under section 80IB in accordance with law in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India –vs.- CIT reported in [2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT.] - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of loss suffered in its SEZ Unit which was claimed by the appellant adjustable against business income - Held that:- Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(Appeals) have not properly appreciated under which provision the assessee was required to furnish the details. The Assessing Officer has himself observed that the deduction was claimed under section 10AA, but he referred to the details as were required to be furnished as per section 10AA(8). Under such ci rcumstances and for proper appreciation of facts and law, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Working out S.T. capital gains at ₹ 1,19,66,299/- by CIT(A) as against Rs. NIL as claimed by the appellant - Held that:- Admittedly in the books of account the assessee’s block of assets was ₹ 1,33,701/- which was liquidated by way of sale at a total consideration of ₹ 1,21,00,000/-. Therefore, there was no justification in allocating the sale consideration against various items, i.e. furniture & fixtures, elect ric instal lation, air conditioners, office equipment s, etc. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that in the sale deed, there is no such bifurcation, though such bifurcation was made at the time of amalgamation. Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly this ground is dismissed.
|