TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us years, no rejection of the claim can be done in the balance succeeding years. In view of this we found the order of Ld. CIT (A) on this issue highly arbitrary, against law and bad on count of merits also. In the result ground no.1 along with its sub grounds is allowed. Wrong application of tax rate - HELD THAT:- As in the relevant A.Y. assessee company was entitled to pay tax @ 25% instead of 30% as provided in the Act, if the turnover of the company in A.Y. 2016-17 is less than 50 cr. There is no new claim for contention raised by assessee rather assessee claim the same in its return of income and both CPC Bangalore and AO ignored this claim of CPC Bangalore. We found the claim of the assessee to be correct. In its submission, assessee categorically mentioned the figure of turnover in the relevant AY i.e. 46.95 crores which makes assessee eligible for lower rate of tax. As w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 as a measure to boost the industry the Hon ble Finance Minister reduce the tax rate for the companies having turnover less than 50 crore in A.Y. 2016-17. We found the contentions raised by the assessee as correct as there is no challenge to this figure at any stage by the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not show the said name and membership number of the Chartered Accountant signing the Form-56F, rather it reflects the logo of income tax which show the authenticity and genuineness of Form 56F, which Ld. CIT(A) should have verified from the Portal, as all submission of the Forms and Returns are to be filed online. 2.0. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Honourable Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the Ground of Appeal for wrongly calculating tax at 30% without considering the fact that the Turnover of the company during the A.Y. 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) was below Rs. 50 Crores for calculating the tax rates @ 25% in A.Y. 2018-19, the same was also not considered @25% in the tax calculation attached to the Assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2021 and First Appeal is filed against the said order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, which is pending before Ld. CIT(A). 3.0 The Appellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30-11-2018 declaring an income of Rs 24,33,85,700/- under the normal provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t considering the fact that the Turnover of the company during the A.Y. 2016-17 (FY 2015-16) was below Rs. 50 Crores for calculating the tax rates @25% in A.Y. 2018-19. 4. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld AO erred in not giving credit of Minimum Alternate Tax of Rs. 67,59,595/- of earlier years. 5. The Appellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal and to make detailed submissions at the time of appeal. 4. It is observed that during the relevant A.Y., assessee claimed a deduction u/s. 10AA amounting to Rs 7, 95, 83,610 in its return and the same has been duly accepted by the CPC Bangalore while processing the return u/s. 143(1) and by the AO also in complete scrutiny u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act. As discussed, (supra) the issue of claiming exemption u/s. 10AA was never in dispute neither in this year nor in the previous years. Above this, this issue was not a subject matter of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee still the Ld. CIT(A) out of his own whims and fancies disallowed the amount of exemption claimed u/s. 10AA. It s a gross violation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on principle of res judicata. The neat question to which the Tribunal addressed itself, and in our opinion rightly, was whether the ITO was justified in refusing to continue the relief of tax holiday granted to the assessee-company for the assessment year 1968-69 in the assessment year under reference, i.e., 1969-70 without disturbing the relief granted for the initial year. It should be stated that there is no provision in the scheme of section 80J similar to one which we find in case of development rebate which could be withdrawn in subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. No doubt, the relief of tax holiday under section 80J can be withheld or discontinued provided the relief granted in the initial year of the assessment is disturbed or changed on valid grounds. But without disturbing the relief granted in the initial year, the ITO cannot examine the question again and decide to withhold or withdraw the relief which has been already once granted. The learned Advocate for the Revenue invited our attention to certain observations made by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Satellite Engineering Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 208 , where the Court was concerned with the question, whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led position of law as discussed (supra) that reversal of exemption claimed u/s. 10A/10AA can only be done from the very first year itself once the claim of the assessee is allowed in the previous years, no rejection of the claim can be done in the balance succeeding years. In view of this we found the order of Ld. CIT (A) on this issue highly arbitrary, against law and bad on count of merits also. In the result ground no.1 along with its sub grounds is allowed. 7. Ground no. 2 pertains to wrong application of tax rate. In the relevant A.Y. assessee company was entitled to pay tax @ 25% instead of 30% as provided in the Act, if the turnover of the company in A.Y. 2016-17 is less than 50 cr. There is no new claim for contention raised by assessee rather assessee claim the same in its return of income and both CPC Bangalore and AO ignored this claim of CPC Bangalore. Assessee in turn claims the same before the Ld. CIT (A) also but in vein. Now this issue is before us for adjudication. We found the claim of the assessee to be correct. In its submission, assessee categorically mentioned the figure of turnover in the relevant AY i.e. 46.95 crores which makes assessee eligible for low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
