Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.3 Without prejudice, that, in any case, the DRP grossly erred on facts and in law in not admitting and considering on merits deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80IB of t he Act, by treating the same as fresh claim."

30. The Assessi ng Offi cer observed that Ld. Members of the DRP heard arguments of the authori zed representati ve of the Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.

assessee and observed that they are mi spl aced. The DRP observed that the deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Court i n the case of M/s Goetze Indi a Li mi ted v/s C.I.T. reporte d i n 284 ITR 324(SC), i s the l aw of the l and and the A.O.'s acti on bei ng fundamentall y based on the sai d deci si on of the Hon'bl e Supreme Cou rt, call s for no i nterference. The DRP al so observed that asse ssee had ampl e opportuni ties to cl ai m the deducti on i n the ori gi nal return as wel l as i n the revi sed return, but, the assessee, at no poi nt of time, made any effort i n the di recti on.

46. It was therefore prayed that in vi ew of the above, the acti on of the AO i n not consi deri ng the cl ai m made by assessee duri ng the assessment proceedi ngs, wi thout appreci ati ng that the same in the true spi ri t of the l aw, is ill egal l and unsustai nabl e. The AO shoul d, th erefore, be di rected to al l ow deducti on u/s 80IB of the Act, as cl ai med by the assessee.

47. The l d. Departmental Representative reli ed on the orde r of the l ower authori ti es and i nsi sted that the Supreme Court deci si on has been ri ghtly appli ed by the Assessi ng Offi cer and the same shoul d be foll owed.

53. As menti oned earli er, the reducti ons/deducti ons cl ai med are beyond scheme of Income Tax Act. Assessee i s having l uxury of full fl edged Tax department manned by most competent, and well experi enced professi onal s. Therefore, by Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.

the above a cts of cl ai ming unall owabl e reducti on/deducti on, i n respect of Sal es Tax, Entry Tax and El ectri city Duty, the assessee has made acti ve attempt to evade tax.

5.1 That the DRP grossly e rred on facts and in law in not allowing af oresaid de duction by holding that the said issue stands decided in favour of Revenue by the orde r of the CIT(A) in the preceding assessment years, without appreciating that t he said obse rvation actually supports the appellant's aforesaid claim of deduction."

58. The Authori zed Representati ve of the assessee submi tted that ESOS expendi ture has been di sall owed in the earlier assessment years and duri ng the current a ssessment year the assessee has wri tten back Rs. 3,92,93,000/- on account of Empl oyee Stock Opti on Scheme (ESOS). The assessee has not accepted the di sall owances made in earl ier years an d has fi l ed appeal i n the matter. Si nce, the i ssue i s pendi ng before the appel l ate authori ty, no acti on i s taken on thi s i ssue i n the current year.