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 →

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Helios And Matheson Information Technology Ltd

2016 (2) TMI 749 - ITAT CHENNAI

Deduction under Section 10A - non filing of Return of income - Held that:- On perusal of the assessment order, it appears that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2006. It is not known what was the due date for filing return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. Similarly, for other assessment year also it is not clear from the orders of the lower authorities the due date for filing return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act specified by the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Officer came to a conclusion that the return of income was not filed under Section 139(1), then the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. Therefore, for a limited purpose of verifying the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Disallowance under Section 14A - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- For the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09, the investm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmercial expediency. Therefore, as rightly found by the CIT(Appeals), the provisions of Section 14A would not be applicable for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2008-09. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue - ITA Nos. 2027, 2028, 2029 & 2030/Mds/2014 - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - N. R S Ganesan, JM And A Mohan Alankamony, AM For the Appellant : Dr Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT For the Respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted that the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act and the Commissioner granted the deduction by directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the foreign currency expenses from total turnover. According to the Ld. D.R., for claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Section 10A of the Act. 3. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed the returns of income for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11within the time specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. For the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the returns of income were not filed within the time specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, where the return was filed within the due date, the CIT(Appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. In respect of foreign currency expenses, what is excluded in the export turnover has also to be excluded from total turnover. In other words, numerator and denominator should be of the same figure. Since the Assessing Officer has excluded from export turnover, the same has also to be excluded from total turnover. For the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act, 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

at Rajkot in Saffire Garments v. ITO (2013) 140 ITD 6 examined this issue elaborately. By placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (266 ITR 1) , the Special Bench found that 5th proviso to Section 10A is mandatory and not directory. The Special Bench further found that when one of the consequences for not filing return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act is mandatory, then other consequence of the same failure of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

opinion that the return has to be necessarily filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, when the return was not filed within the period specified under Section 139(1) of the Act, then naturally the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 5. The Ld.counsel for the assessee now claims that the returns of income for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2010-11 were filed within the due date. However, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, it was not fil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside on this issue and the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the due date for filing return of income under Section 139(1) for the respective assessment years. After verification, if the Assessing Officer found that the return of income was filed within the due date specified under Section 139(1), then the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. If, for any reason, if the Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

adhukar Bhusari, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made investment in the shares and mutual funds, therefore, income from such investments does not form part of total income. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the expenditure related to earning the income was disallowed. However, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 8. On the contrary, Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitt .....

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