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

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Mumbai Versus M/s. Yes Bank Ltd.

2017 (8) TMI 195 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Revision u/s 263 - applicability of Section 35D - Held that:- Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee about the correctness of the amount of one-fifth of the total expenses incurred under Section 35D of the Act. The assessee under letter dated 26.10.2004 gave specific explanation on the issue raised by the AO and thereafter, the assessment order was passed. To substantiate his claim, the assessee has placed reliance upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Cou .....

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 not given any finding in regard to the applicability of Section 35D vis-a-vis the assessee so also have not considered the observations of the Tribunal with regard to exercise of revisional powers only on his own accord and not an application by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 599 of 2015 - Dated:- 1-8-2017 - S. V. Gangapurwala And A. M. Badar, JJ. Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant Mr. Madhur Agarwal a/w Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent ORDE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order passed by the Assessing Officer granting benefit under Section 35D of the Act was erroneous and the same was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. As such, ingredients of Section 263 of the Act were attracted. The Commissioner has rightly exercised its revisionary power. 3. Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that the Assessing Officer had before passing the assessment order, called for explanation from the assessee. The explanation was giv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are industrial undertakings and eligible for deductions under Section 32A. According to the learned Counsel, the CIT(A) could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction even if it came to the conclusion that there are two possible views. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 81 and another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd., reported in (200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3,27,82,000/claimed under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) During the financial year 200506, the assessee had incurred an aggregate expenditure of ₹ 16,39,10,000/on Initial Public Offering ( IPO ) of equity shares made. The Issue closed on June 12, 2005. It has claimed a deduction under Section 35D for ₹ 3,27,82,000/being one-fifty of the total expenses incurred. This is the second year of claim for deduction. The assessee submits that section 35D grants a deducti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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