9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench in I.T.A. No.1204/Coch/2005 & C.O. No.11/Coch/2006 dated 27.04.2012. In the subject Tax Appeal the issue relates to Assessment Year 1996-97. The appeal examines an issue arising under Section 80HHB of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short 'CIT (Appeals) disallowed the claim of assessee of revaluation of government bonds and the loss in sale of government bonds. M/s. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd/respondent (for short 'the Assessee') aggrieved thereby filed I.T.A No. 47/Coch/2000 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Appellate Tribunal through order dated 17.06.2003 allowed the appeal of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HHB amounting to Rs. 10,06,26,590/-. For clarity, it is desirable to furnish the details of determination by the Assessing Officer. "Income fixed originally as per order dated 7.7.99 : Rs. 21,38,66,220/- Less: Deduction u/s 80HHB : Rs. 10,06,26,590/- ----------------------- Rs. 11,32,39,830/- ---------------------- Revised total income : Rs. 11,32,39,830/- ================= 2.2 Finally, the tax demanded was Rs. 4,65,55,414/-. It noted that the re-computation of income through Annexure B dated 15.02.2002 was prior to the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No.47/Coch/2000. On 17.06.2003 the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, substantial relief granted and the Tribunal accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian undertaking and the foreign project is a profit or a loss. In the assessee's own case while examining the claim in respect of reduction in value of the bonds to be allowed as a trading loss, the ITAT has also not set forth any such restriction. Courts have consistently held their view ig. 161 ITR 320, 201 ITR 968 (Ker), 215 ITR 249 (Cal), 251 ITR 471 (Andh) and 249 ITR 793. I, therefore, direct the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80HHB in full i.e., as it was allowed by the AO's order dated 15.02.2002 giving effect to the CIT (As)'s order i.e., at Rs. 10,06,26,590/- instead of Rs. 7,46,50,647/-." 2.3 The Revenue and the assessee filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent of relief granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Standing Counsel Mr.Christopher Abraham prefaces his submissions by arguing that the Revenue is not questioning the eligibility of assessee for deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act. The Department questions the arbitrary quantification of deduction by the CIT (Appeals) in order dated 01.09.2005. The illegality, according to him, in the order of CIT (Appeals) in Annexure-I is that the Commissioner accepted deduction under Section 80HHB arrived at by the Assessing Officer in the revised Assessment Order dated 15.02.2002. The said order was made prior to the decision of the Tribunal dated 17.06.2003. In other words, upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal, the assessee is entitled to claim loss on revaluation of current assets and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and effect of the orders made by the authorities under Act from time to time, stated that the Revenue, since is not questioning the eligibility of assessee for deduction under Section 80HHB, the quantification should be according to the concluded figures determined in the effect order. To wit, we quote his words: "I find it difficult to justify the source and reason for the Commissioner to assume the existence of Rs. 10,06,26,590/- as 50% of gross total income of the assessee". The assessee since is successful in its claim on loss of sale and revaluation of bonds, which are one of the items added by the Assessing Officer in the effect order, this loss will have to be correspondingly given effect to, thereafter the gross total income is de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
