Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Ashoka Buildcon Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 April, 2010

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs Cit(Exemption)/ Ito (Exemption), ... on 22 March, 2023

In any case of the matter, in our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd (supra) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon vs. CIT (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, a reading of the original assessment order would reveal that the issue relating to deduction claimed under s. 80IA was a subject-matter therein. In fact, the draft assessment order passed by the AO on the issue of deduction claimed under s. 801A of the Act was disputed before learned DRP and after passing of the final assessment order, the issue relating to claim of deduction under s. 801A of the Act is now pending in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, any attempt by the AO to deal with such issue in re-assessment proceedings would have amounted to review of the original assessment order, which is impermissible. Thus, in the aforesaid scenario, the assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 28 | P a g e of the Act cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to subject it to proceeding under s.263 of the Act. If, at all, any order of the subordinate authority which could have been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee's claim of deduction under s. 801A of the Act, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, is the original assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r/ws.144C of the Act and not the re-assessment order. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under s. 263(2) of the Act would run from the original assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit 4(2), Mumbai on 22 December, 2022

18. The law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). While deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the assessee, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under: 325 ITR 574 (Bom) ―7. Section 263 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and to pass such orders as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing, modifying or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment, if he considers that any order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Sub- section (2) of section 263 stipulates that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the original order of assessment dated 27-12-2006 was passed, has expired on 31-3-2009. Hence the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction in respect of the original order of reassessment is barred by limitation. This is sought to be obviated by the Commissioner of Income- tax by seeking to revise, under section 263, the order dated 27-12-2007. The order dated 27-12-2007 was passed after the assessment was reopened on the ground of an escapement of income under section 147 and an order of reassessment was passed by which the claim under section 16 ITA No. 1159/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 72A came to be disallowed. The submission that has been urged on behalf of the assessee is that, since the assessment was opened and an order of reassessment was passed only one issue namely, the claim under section 72A, when the Commissioner as a Revisional Authority under section 263 seeks to exercise his jurisdiction on matters which did not form the subject of the order of reassessment, the period of limitation would begin to run from the original order of assessment. This submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee would have to be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alagendran Finance Ltd.'s case (supra). The issue which arose before the Supreme Court was whether, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under sub-section (1) of section 263, the date of the order of assessment or of the order of reassessment is to be taken into consideration. In that case, the assessee filed its return for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 and the assessments were completed on 27-2-1997, 12-5-1997 and 30-3-1998. In the orders of assessment, the return of the assessee under the head of "Lease Equalisation Fund" were accepted. Proceedings for reassessment were initiated by the Assessing Officer and orders of reassessment were passed in respect of the following items namely : (i) expenses claimed for share issue;
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Konark Structural Engg Private ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 25 May, 2018

"7. This aspect of the matter has been considered in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 574 / 191 Taxman 29 . The Division Bench considered a similar submission based on 13 ITA No. 5488/Mum/2017 Explanation 3 which was inserted in Section 147 by the Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1989. Negativing the submission, the Division Bench held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Tata Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr Cit 2, Mumbai on 29 July, 2021

In any case of the matter, in our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd (supra) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon vs CIT (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, a reading of the original assessment order would reveal that the issue relating to deduction claimed under section 80IA was a subject matter therein. In fact, the draft assessment order passed by the assessing officer on the issue of deduction claimed under section 80IA of the Act was disputed before learned DRP and after passing of the final assessment order, the issue relating to claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act is now pending in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, any attempt by the assessing officer to deal with such issue in re-assessment proceedings would have amounted to review of the original assessment order, which is impermissible. Thus, in the aforesaid scenario, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to subject it to proceeding under section 263 of the Act. If, at all, any order of the subordinate authority which could have 21 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee's claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, is the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act and not the re-assessment order. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under section 263(2) of the Act would run from the original assessment order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.V.K.Industries Ltd.,, Secunderabad vs Assessee

7. This aspect of the matter has been considered in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 574/191 Taxman 29. The Division Bench considered a similar submission based on Explanation 3 which was inserted in Section 147 by the Finance Act of 2009 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1989. Negativing the submission. the Division Bench held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1