9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a re-determined the taxable income of the petitioner as Rs. 62,93,86,042/. Although, the impugned order is an appealable order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed a Return of Income for the assessment year 2012-13 under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.09.2012. In the said Return of Income, the petitioner had declared a taxable income of Rs. 56,13,25,680/-. 4. The Assessing Officer vide scrutiny Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015 under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, redetermined taxable income of the petitioner as Rs. 56,66,13,640/-. 5. In the aforesaid assessment order dated 31.03.2015, the gross tax payable by the petitioner was determined as Rs. 16,99,84,092/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n14A read with rule 8D was reasonable and did not warrant any interference. 13. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the average value of the investment, income which did not form part of the total income, should only be considered while computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 14. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the disallowance under the aforesaid provision by considering 0.5% of the average value of investment being the income which did not form part of the total income. 15. The said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was appealed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 331/MDS/2017 By the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermining taxable income at Rs. 56,66,13,640. 3. Subsequently, the assessee's case for the Asst. Year 2012-13 has been reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 16.03.2019 for the following reasons; Issue 1. As per Col. 15 of Part B-TI Computation of Total income of the return of income filed by assessee, deemed income u/s 115JB is Rs. 93,19,91,425. Col. 1 of Part B-TTI Computation of tax liability on total income of the return of income filed by assessee shows tax payable u/s 115JB together with surcharge and education cess at Rs. 18,64,70,515. As against this, tax payable together with surcharge and education cess computed in the assessment order as per the normal provisions of 1.T. Act is only Rs. 18,38,37,796. This being l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e R & D expenditure allowed by DSR is Rs. 2626.90 lakhs as against sum of Rs. 26.28.48.925 claimed by assesse. However AO omitted to make such disallowance. It has to be verified and the excess deduction granted of Rs. 1,59,000 has to be disallowed. Issue 5 As per Col. 29 of Sch.BP of return of income, assesse claimed deduction of Rs. 17,50,000 u/s 35AC. As per Col.15 of Form 3CD audit report also, the claim is made u/s 35AC. However it is seen that assesse paid only sum of Rs. 10 lakhs during the year to Vision Research Foundation which is eligible for deduction @ 100% and not @ 175% as claimed by assesse. It has to be verified and the excess deduction granted of Rs. 7,50,000 has to be disallowed. Issue 6. As per Note 30 to Financial S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of foreign exchange, loss is speculative in nature and cannot be deducted from business income. It has to be verified. Further to get exemption treating such foreign currency forward contracts as transactions in derivatives, it has to be an eligible transaction fulfilling the conditions prescribed in sec.43(5)(d) ie, transactions carried out in a recognised stock exchange etc. whereas assessee did not carry out foreign currency forward contracts through any recognised stock exchange and instead it did it through banks only. Hence on this count also assessee is not eligible for exemption. It has to be verified and the excess deduction granted of Rs. 533.36 Inkhs has to be disallowed. Issue 8. Sec. 40(a)(ia) mandates payment of TDS on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22. The case of the petitioner that the reopening of the completed assessment was inspired from change of opinion and is contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT versus Kelvinator of India Ltd, 320 ITR 561. 23. It is further case that the reason recorded for reopening the assessment does not indicate that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and to disclose all material necessary for completion of the assessment. 24. The writ petitioners opposed by the respondent on the ground that petitioner has an alternate remedy. It is submitted that failure to pass a separate speaking order is not fatal in terms of the decision of the Court in Home Finders Housing Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, (2018) 404 ITR 611. 25. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
