Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs H.M. Exports Ltd. on 14 December, 2004
As regards issue raised in
ground no.2 in the appeal of the assessee, the ld. AR while referring to page 62
of the paper book contended that the entire indirect cost attributable to trading
goods could not be considered while computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act.
Only indirect cost attributable to trading goods exported could be reduced. Since
foreign exchange fluctuation was not an expenditure but only loss, the ld. AR
contended that foreign exchange fluctuation could not be considered while
computing deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. As regards freight, the ld. AR relied
upon decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. H.M. Exports Ltd. (2005)
276 ITR 299 (Cal). Regarding deduction u/s 80HHC in relation to DEPB
benefits, the ld. AR did not make any submissions while in respect of ground
raised in the appeal of the Revenue, the ld.AR pointed out that foreign exchange
fluctuation related to export made by the assessee.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Delhi ... vs The Chamber Of Colours & Chemicals Ltd., ... on 10 December, 1969
Inter alia, learned DR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, 328
ITR 451 (Bom).
Asstt. Cit vs Woodword Governors India (P) Ltd. on 20 April, 2007
Regarding deduction on account of notional foreign exchange
loss, the ld. DR pointed out that without ascertaining the nature of foreign
exchange fluctuation, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in following the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. WoodWord Governor P. Ltd. 312 ITR 254
(SC).The ld. DR argued that neither the AO nor the learned CIT(A) examined the
nature of foreign exchange fluctuation.
Ongc Videsh Limited & Another vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 October, 2009
b) The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT Vs. Wood Word Governor India P. Ltd. (2009) 312
ITR 254 (SC) relied upon by learned CIT(A) has since
been reversed by the Apex Court in ONGC Ltd. Vs. CIT
322 ITR 180 (SC) wherein cognizance has been taken to
the amendment to section 43B Income-tax Act, 1961 with
effect from 01.04.2003.
Finance Act, 2012
Section 43A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 January, 1995
[Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of
Punjab,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)].As already observed, the impugned
order suffers from lack of reasoning and is not a speaking order on
any of the three issues adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the
foregoing, especially when the ld. CIT(A) have not passed a
speaking order on various issues raised in the appeal before him,
we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld.
CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the aforesaid
issues, afresh in accordance with law in the light of various judicial
pronouncements including those referred to above, after allowing
sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while
redeciding the appeal, the ld. CIT (A) shall pass a speaking order,
keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6)
of the Act. W ith these observations, ground nos.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S Woodward Governor India P. Ltd on 8 April, 2009
6. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the
case as also the aforesaid decisions relied upon both the sides. As regards
inclusion of custom duty and freight inward in the valuation of closing stock, the
AO added the proportionate amount of these expenses towards closing stock of
branch office at Sharjah. The ld.CIT(A) without recording any findings as to the
nature of custom duty or freight inwards upheld the findings of the AO. The
learned AR now contended before us that only the nomenclature used is
customs duty, but actually it is similar to Sales Tax. Regarding inclusion of
freight, the ld. AR submitted that the head 'freight inwards' was wrongly
mentioned in the accounts and actually the amount was on account of freight
paid for delivery of goods to the customers. However, we find that there is no
whisper in the impugned order on these aspects nor the ld. AR explained that
plea now being taken before us was raised before the lower authorities. In any
8 ITA nos.3007&4445/Del./2010
case, neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) recorded any findings on the nature of
custom duty or freight added towards valuation of closing stock. In respect of
deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, the AO recomputed indirect cost and excluded
DEPB benefits, the assessee having not fulfilled conditions stipulated under third
proviso to section 80HHC(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) without recording any
findings on exclusion on DEPB benefits from the computation u/s 80HHC of the
Act nor recording any findings as to how indirect cost of expenses mentioned in
schedule 14 to 17 of the balance sheet related to export turnover and whether or
not foreign exchange loss was in relation to exports and was not a cost and
merely a loss, as contended by the learned AR, upheld the findings of the AO.
Likewise, in following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in WoodWord
Governor P. Ltd. (supra), the ld. CIT(A) did not even analyse the nature of foreign
exchange fluctuation nor adverted to the applicability or otherwise of the
amended provisions of sec. 43A of the Act and nor even recorded any findings
as to whether or not the amount related to exports made during the year. A copy
of ledger account of foreign exchange fluctuation placed before us at the fag end
of the hearing, does not reveal the nature of fluctuation. In nutshell, a mere
glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the
ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the
rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial/quasi-judicial
body/authority must pass reasoned order, which should reflect
application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points
raised before it. The application of mind to the material facts and
the arguments should manifest itself in the order. Section 250(6) of
the Act mandates that the order of the CIT(A) while disposing of the
appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for
determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the
decision. The requirement of recording of reasons and
communication thereof by the quasi-judicial authorities has been
read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure and is an
important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It
9 ITA nos.3007&4445/Del./2010
introduces clarity, checks the introduction of extraneous or
irrelevant considerations and minimizes arbitrariness in the
decision-making process.