Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Triveni Kshetriya Gramin Bank Versus D.C.I.T., Circle-6, Kanpur

2015 (11) TMI 2 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Revision u/s 263 - AO allowed brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- On the first issue, we find that as per the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 dated 14/07/2011 available on record, the assessed income is positive income of ₹ 1777.24 lac. The present year is the very next year after assessment year 2008-09 and when there is positive taxable income in assessment year 2008-09, there cannot be any brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 was converted into loss in turn resulting into availability of any brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation in the present year. Hence, the assessment order is clearly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this issue because the Assessing Officer has allowed brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.

Loss on investment - we find that although enquiry was raised by the Asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e.

Subsidy reserve fund - there is no enquiry by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer resulting into assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Amortization of Government securities - although there was enquiry by the Assessing Officer but no detail was furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and hence, the Assessing Officer should have applied his mind to decide as to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

therefore, no interference is called for in the order of learned CIT. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.493/LKW/2012 - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, JJ. For The Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kushwaha, C. A. For The Respondent : Shri Vivek Mishra, C.I.T., D. R. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. This is an assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT-II, Kanpur dated 10/07/2012 u/s 263 for assessment year 2009- 2010. 2. The assessee has raised the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d CIT II exceeded his jurisdiction as the CIT does not have the power to revise the case when the facts have been considered and adjudicated by the A.O. in the light of the decisions of higher judicial authorities. 4. That the Ld CIT II grossly erred in on facts and law while concluding ld AO has not examined the issue of Carry forward of Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation, without appreciating the fact that in the appellate order of AY 2007-08 Id CIT (A) I Kanpur has directed the AO to check the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

usiness expenditure without considering the law laid down in (240 ITR 355) by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus Ld. CIT has grossly erred in concluding that the loss on sale of bonds units is a capital loss, which is factually/legally incorrect. The conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT is without any discussion and reasoning. 7. The Ld. CIT grossly erred in concluding that deduction claimed u/s 36 (1)(viia) debiting ₹ 25,04,746.09 to avoid the attention of the department towards the net increase .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ok are the notices issued by Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) of the Act on 14/07/2011 and the reply of the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer is available on pages 18 to 20 of the paper book. He submitted that enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer and reply was submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer on all issues and therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, the order of learned CIT u/s 263 is without .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment year 2008-09 and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5.1 The second objection of learned CIT is that as per Schedule-14, a sum of ₹ 41,15,648.48 is claimed by the assessee as loss on sale of investment. He has also noted that the Assessing Officer as per Para 5 of the written questionnaire required the assessee to file details of loss on sale of investment and as per the details submitted by the assessee before the Assessi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

manner, there is total increase in liability of ₹ 1641.37 lac but as per profit & loss account and appropriation account, only a sum of ₹ 25.05 lac is debited in profit & loss account as provision and contingencies and sum of ₹ 131.30 lac is debited in the appropriation account as statutory reserve. He has also noted that there is no detail available in respect of addition of ₹ 25.05 lac and therefore, it implies that the assessee has debited only amount of ͅ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essment order is suffering from lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer, then the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In the present case, on the first issue, we find that as per the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09 dated 14/07/2011 available on record, the assessed income is positive income of ₹ 1777.24 lac. The present year is the very next year after assessment year 2008-09 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der passed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 and nothing has been brought on record to show that the positive income assessed by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2008-09 was converted into loss in turn resulting into availability of any brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation in the present year. Hence, the assessment order is clearly erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this issue because the Assessing Officer has allowed brou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version