Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
In Goetze (India) Ltd. V. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC),
wherein deduction claimed by way of a letter before Assessing
Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no
provision under the Act to make amendment in the return
without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as
the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court,
was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the
power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction
otherwise than by revised return, and did not impinge on the
power of Tribunal.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S Madras Industrial ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tamil ... on 4 April, 1997
18. Further, revenue expenditure which is incurred wholly and
exclusively for the purpose of business must be allowed in its
entirety in the year in which it is incurred. It cannot be spread
over a number of years even if the assessee has written if off in
his books over a period of years. (Reliance can be placed on
11
ITA No.3348/Del/2013 & CO 191/Del/2014
Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. V. CIT (1997) 225
ITR 802 (SC).
Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80I in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 November, 2010
13. We entirely agree with the above observation of the ITAT Mumbai
Bench. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to determine the correct
10
ITA No.3348/Del/2013 & CO 191/Del/2014
tax liability of the assessee. That during the assessment proceedings the
assessee did not make any new claim but only modified the figure of
receipts from Cairn Energy and ONGC. The Assessing Officer accepted
the modification of the receipts from Cairn Energy which was upward
revision but did not accept the modification of receipts from ONGC
which was downward revision. In our opinion the correct determination
of receipts is a part of the duty of the Assessing Officer and he cannot
refuse to determine the correct receipts from ONGC. The Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
(supra) held that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Goetze India Ltd. did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal. The
relevant observation their Lords reads as under:
1