Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.52 seconds)Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ajmer vs M/S Nitin Spinners Ltd. on 31 August, 2021
CIT v. Nitin Spinners Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 402.
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
After considering the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India
Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2006) 157 taxmann.com 1 wherein, the
Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:-
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs M/S My Home Power Ltd on 24 April, 2019
The dispute in the present case isalso
regarding nature of receipt on account of transfer of carbon
credit.Ld. DR of the Revenue could not point out any difference
in facts in thepresent case and in the case of CIT Vs. My Home
Power Ltd. (Supra) and therefore, respectfully following this
judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, we decline to
interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly,
Ground No.1 of the Revenue is rejected."
Srf Limited, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi on 7 February, 2022
30. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down
by Coordinate Bench, as aforesaid, we hold that the receipts
from sale of RECs, being in the nature of capital receipts, should
be excluded for the purpose of computing book profit
under section 115JB of the Act. Grounds are allowed to the
extent indicate above."
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. L.T. Foods Ltd., New Delhi on 30 September, 2020
23. Identical view is found to have been expressed by the Hon'ble ITAT,
Mumbai in the case of DCIT v. Patanjali Foods Ltd. (supra) wherein it
was held that the subsidies received by the assessee under the Foreign
Trade Policy, is in the nature of capital receipt, not chargeable to tax.
The relevant findings, relied upon by us, is as follows:-
M/S. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs Addl.Cit, New Delhi on 5 August, 2022
14. Thus, the issue is whether the Tribunal has the power
/jurisdiction to examine such claim. The 3 judges bench of
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (supra) had
considered precisely same question which reads as under:-
Shriram Investments Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 31 May, 1996
18. Now coming to the judgment relied upon by the ld. CIT DR,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shriram Investments
vsCIT (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
whether the revised return filed by the assessee which was
barred by limitation u/s.139 (5), does the AO has jurisdiction to
consider the claim made by the assessee in the said revised
return. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revised return
was barred by limitation and ld. AO does not have any
jurisdiction to consider the claim by the assessee in the revised
return. Nowhere, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
Tribunal does not have the power u/s.254. On the contrary, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal has not
exercised its power u/s.254 to consider the assessee's claim
and instead Tribunal has directed the ld. AO to consider the
assessee's claim made in the revised return which was barred
by limitation where ld.AO had no jurisdiction to consider the
claim. The relevant para 8 & 9 clarifying this issue reads as
under:-