Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Menon Impex P. Ltd. on 2 September, 2002
The AO also relied upon decision in the case of CIT v.
Menon Impex Private Ltd., (259 ITR 403) (Mad) to deny the assessee
deduction u/s. 80IC with respect to aforesaid items of „Other Income‟
of Rs. 45,44,428/- claimed by the assessee by holding that these
income were not derived from the industrial undertaking as these
income were not having direct nexus with the business operations of
the undertaking or these incomes were were apportioned from head
office to the undertaking entitled for deduction u/s 80IC. The learned
CIT(A) also dismissed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IC
of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT(A) has also noted that the assessee
did not furnish details before it to prove direct nexus of these incomes
with the income derived from the undertaking entitled for deduction
u/s 80IC of the 1961 Act. The assessee has admitted and conceded
before us that following income‟s included in the aforesaid „Other
Incomes‟ are to be excluded while computing deduction u/s 80IC of
the 1961 Act and the issue so far as the following incomes are
concerned is to be adjudicated against the assessee, namely as under:
Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 April, 2003
From the working of deduction u/s 80IC of the 1961 Act furnished by
the assessee, the AO had observed that these items of income had
been apportioned from head office (from the non 80IC unit) in the
profits of the three units for the purpose of claiming deductions
u/s. 80IC , even though as per the AO these items of income have no
direct nexus with nor are they derived from the business operation of
the industrial undertaking on which the deductions have been
claimed. The AO relying upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court
8
I.T.A. No.2778/Mum/2017
in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) , Pandian Chemicals
Ltd., v. CIT (129 Taxman 539) and also decision of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT reported in (2009) 317 ITR
218(SC), disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IC
of the 1961 Act.
M/S Liberty India vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Karnal on 31 August, 2009
The tribunal in assessee‟s own case for AY 2011-12 in ITA
no.4550/Mum/2016 vide orders dated 10.07.2018 has decided the
issue of considering interest income and rental income while allowing
deduction u/s 80IC against the assessee , by following the decision of
ITAT for AY 2010-11 in assessee‟s own. Further Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Liberty India(supra) has held that the DEPB
income cannot be considered for allowing deduction u/s 80IC of the
1961 Act. Thus, Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions , we
decide the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IC on interest
9
I.T.A. No.2778/Mum/2017
income, Rent Income and DEPB income against the assessee. We
order accordingly.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999
From the working of deduction u/s 80IC of the 1961 Act furnished by
the assessee, the AO had observed that these items of income had
been apportioned from head office (from the non 80IC unit) in the
profits of the three units for the purpose of claiming deductions
u/s. 80IC , even though as per the AO these items of income have no
direct nexus with nor are they derived from the business operation of
the industrial undertaking on which the deductions have been
claimed. The AO relying upon the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court
8
I.T.A. No.2778/Mum/2017
in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods (237 ITR 579) , Pandian Chemicals
Ltd., v. CIT (129 Taxman 539) and also decision of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT reported in (2009) 317 ITR
218(SC), disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IC
of the 1961 Act.
Dcit, Chandigarh vs Ansysco, Chandigarh on 16 December, 2016
Similar is
for the other incomes viz. discount from supplies , excess provision
written back, credit balances written back and miscellaneous income ,
we are of the view that the assessee has to show that these incomes
from discount from supplies , excess provision written back, credit
balances written back and miscellaneous income have direct nexus
and were derived from the industrial undertaking on which deduction
u/s. 80IC was claimed by the assessee to get benefit of deduction u/s
80IC . Hence for verification purposes, we are restoring the matter
back to the file of the AO wherein the assessee will be required to
prove through cogent evidences that these incomes from discount
from supplies , excess provision written back, credit balances written
back and miscellaneous income were derived from the industrial
undertaking on which deduction u/s. 80IC was claimed, as is
contemplated and required under the provisions of Section 80IC of the
Act. We have noted that the assessee had relied on the decision of
ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of DCIT v. Ansysco (supra), decision of
ITAT, Delhi in the case of Quadrant EPP Surlon Uttranchal Private
Ltd. v. (supra) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in assessee‟s own case
for AY 2011-12 in Gabriel India Limited v.DCIT(supra) to support its
contentions. The ground no. 1 is partly allowed for statistical
purposes. We order accordingly.
Hindustan Uniliver Ltd ( As Successor To ... vs Ito 1(1)(2), Mumbai on 9 November, 2016
The contention of the
authorities below that TDS might not have been deducted on some of
these expenses also lacks merit as the assessee has brought on record
tax audit report to prove that there was no default in compliance of
TDS. The complete details of these expenses were furnished by the
assessee before the authorities below. In our considered view,
disallowance of these miscellaneous expenses on adhoc basis @ 2% of
miscellaneous expenses was made by authorities below merely on
conjectures and surmises without bring any incriminating material on
record and such disallowances on adhoc basis in the manner done by
the authorities below keeping in view facts and material on record
before the authorities below is not permissible. Our view is fortified by
the following decisions of tribunal relied upon by the assessee, M/s.
PNC Construction Co. Ltd., v. DCIT, ITA no. 145/Agr/2012 dated
13
I.T.A. No.2778/Mum/2017
15.02.2003, ACIT v. M/s. Perfect Circle Victor Ltd., ITA no.
2067/Mum/2007 vide order dated 30.06.2011 and decision of
Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. ITO, ITA
no. 1144/Mum/2011 vide order dated 09.11.2016. Thus, the assessee
succeeds on this issue and the entire disallowance of miscellaneous
expenses as was made by the AO and as confirmed by learned CIT(A)
stood deleted. The ground no. 2 is allowed.We order accordingly.
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Bakhtawar Construction Co. P. Ltd, ... vs Dcit Cir 2(1), Mumbai on 20 April, 2018
So far as second issue is concerned, the assessee has strongly
contended that no ad-hoc disallowance can be made as was made by
the AO to the tune of Rs. 2% of the miscellaneous expenditure
incurred by the assessee. The assessee has drawn our attention to
page no. 22 and 23-87 of the paper book filed by the assessee wherein
details of Miscellaneous Expenses are filed. The assessee relied upon
the following judgements of the tribunal M/s. PNC Construction Co.
Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA no. 145/Agr/2012 dated 15.02.2013, ACIT v. M/s.
Perfect Circle Victor Ltd., ITA no. 2067/Mum/2007 vide order dated
30.06.2011 and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Hindustan
Unilever Ltd. v. ITO, ITA no. 1144/Mum/2011 order dated
09.11.2016. The Ld. AR submitted that tax audit report was duly
submitted before the AO and there is no TDS default and complete
miscellaneous expenses detail were given before the AO . It was also
submitted that there is no adverse comments by the learned
AO/CIT(A) on these miscellaneous expenses. It was also submitted
that there is no allegation by the authorities below that the expenses
were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the
business of the assessee. So far as ground no. 3 and 4 are concerned
these grounds are not pressed by the assessee and prayers is made to
dismiss these two grounds. It was submitted that ground number 5 is
general in nature and prayer was made to dismiss the same.