Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Raymond Ltd on 21 March, 2012

5. The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of disallowance of Rs. 857 crores u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition to book profits u/s 14A of the Act, such an issue is covered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12 and 5 SA No.2/Del/2020 followed in subsequent years in favour of the assessee. In respect of additions on account of out of books receivables, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer never rejected the books of accounts maintained by the Applicant under Section 145 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that when the books of account were not rejected, the adjustment cannot be made to the book profit, more so when the adjustment made does not fall under any of the specified adjustment under Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. As regards to adjustment on account of reversal of provision for tax, the Ld. AR submitted that the amalgamating entities in their computation of income for the respective assessment years, had duly added back the amount of provision for tax created in those years. Therefore, the amount of provision for tax had already been added as part of Book Profit. This amounts to double taxation in assessee's case. As regards to addition on account of debenture redemption reserve, the Ld. AR submitted that the evidence placed before the Revenue reflects that the said reserve is calculated on scientific basis. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Rayon Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 227 ITR 764 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Raymond Ltd. 209 Taxman 65. As regards to addition on account of provision for Bad and Doubtful debts, the Ld. AR submitted that the provisions are made against the moneys that are to be received by the assessee in due course of business and the said provision reflect an estimate of amounts that end up as bad debts as the same are never received by the assessee. The said amounts are not against the liabilities as they are not made against any payable/liability of the assessee. Thus, it does not fall within the ambit of the Clause (c) of the Explanation 1 6 SA No.2/Del/2020 of Section 115JB of the Act.

National Rayon Corporation Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 July, 1997

5. The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of disallowance of Rs. 857 crores u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and addition to book profits u/s 14A of the Act, such an issue is covered in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12 and 5 SA No.2/Del/2020 followed in subsequent years in favour of the assessee. In respect of additions on account of out of books receivables, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer never rejected the books of accounts maintained by the Applicant under Section 145 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that when the books of account were not rejected, the adjustment cannot be made to the book profit, more so when the adjustment made does not fall under any of the specified adjustment under Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. As regards to adjustment on account of reversal of provision for tax, the Ld. AR submitted that the amalgamating entities in their computation of income for the respective assessment years, had duly added back the amount of provision for tax created in those years. Therefore, the amount of provision for tax had already been added as part of Book Profit. This amounts to double taxation in assessee's case. As regards to addition on account of debenture redemption reserve, the Ld. AR submitted that the evidence placed before the Revenue reflects that the said reserve is calculated on scientific basis. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Rayon Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 227 ITR 764 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Raymond Ltd. 209 Taxman 65. As regards to addition on account of provision for Bad and Doubtful debts, the Ld. AR submitted that the provisions are made against the moneys that are to be received by the assessee in due course of business and the said provision reflect an estimate of amounts that end up as bad debts as the same are never received by the assessee. The said amounts are not against the liabilities as they are not made against any payable/liability of the assessee. Thus, it does not fall within the ambit of the Clause (c) of the Explanation 1 6 SA No.2/Del/2020 of Section 115JB of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

M/S. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 16 June, 2017

The Ld. AR further submitted that an addition on account of expenses incurred in respect of exempt income under Section 14A, the action of the DRP and the Assessing Officer in making an upward adjustment to the Book Profits of the Applicant under Section 115JB of the Act qua disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is in blatant disregard of the ruling of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 415 (Del. Tri.) (SB), wherein the Tribunal unequivocally held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 104 - Cited by 797 - Full Document
1   2 Next