Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Ganesh Polychem Ltd.

2015 (6) TMI 446 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance of the deduction under section 10B by not allowing the assessee to reduce the expenditure on account of repairs and maintenance which was already debited to the profit and loss account - CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by accepting the explanation of the assessee that the said amount was not reduced from the profits of the A.Y. 2007-08 and accordingly in the year under consideration it was a rectification - Held that:- An error was committed by the assessee in the books .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sult of the said rectification adjustment made in the books of accounts for the year under consideration the profit of the assessee was increased by the said amount in comparison to the real profit of the year. Therefore, the assessee in computation of income for the assessment year under consideration has deducted the said amount to bring the income at the correct amount. We find that if the income for the year under consideration is not correctly computed in the statement of income it would ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri Deepesh T Chheda, AR For the Respondent : Shri Vijay Kumar Bora, DR ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 23.07.2013 of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in this appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that setting off of the loss of non-eligible undertaking against the profits of the eligible undertakin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

time before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 2. Ground No.1 is regarding restricting the claim of resolution under section 10B by setting off of the loss of non eligible undertaking against the profits of eligible undertaking. 3. We have heard the Ld. D.R. as well as the Ld. A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this is a recurring issue and this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 has decided this issue in fa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for the earlier years. Copies of the relevant orders of the Tribunal are also placed on record by him before us and perusal of the same shows that a similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Black & Veatch Consulting (P) Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 727 (ITA No. 1237 of 2011 dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in ITA No. 22/Mum/2009. Respectfully following this judicial pronouncement, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 1013 from the income of the assessee before set off of brought forward business losses and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue." 4. We further note that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of this Tribunal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.02.13 whereby the order of this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mputation of income the assessee has claimed deduction of consumable stores & spares of ₹ 73,21,585/- and repairs and maintenance of ₹ 53,25,202/- total amounting to ₹ 1,26,46,787/-. On query from the Assessing Officer (AO) the assessee submitted that the company has inadvertently considered capital expenditure of ₹ 1,26,46,787/- as revenue in nature in its accounts for the year ending 31.03.07. The said mistake was realized by the company at the time of preparation o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penditure was reduced while working out the net profit of the eligible undertaking for section 10B deduction and was also added to net profit for the computation of deduction under section 10B. Thus the assessee has contended that to rectify the said mistake in the account the assessee has reduced the stores & spares and repairs & maintenance by the same amount while preparing the accounts for the year ended 31.03.08. Correspondingly, the same amount was reduced from the net profit while .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rofits of the A.Y. 2007-08 and accordingly in the year under consideration it was a rectification and consequential entry carried out in the books of account. 7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. as well as the Ld. A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. The Ld. D.R. has forcibly contended that how an expenditure of the A.Y. 2007-08 can be allowed for the A.Y. 2008-09. He has relied upon the order of the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that the said amount of ₹ 1,26 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version