Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range ... on 22 January, 2008
3. We have heard the rival contentions and the respective parties hereto have
supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) as well as AO on their part. The ld. CIT(A) on
the issue of advance receipt from M/s. Delhi Iron and Steel Co. found out that the
assessee was dealing with the said company by making sales to which the ledger copy
has been furnished indicating that the advance have been received by way of cheque
and sales have been made in the impugned assessment year were accounted for as the
difference amount as on 31st March, 2008 amounting to Rs.1,93,09,500/- was to be
considered against the sale in the subsequent year. Therefore, it was not the case of the
AO to hold the transactions taxable u/s 68 of the Act, in so far as M/s. Delhi Iron and
Steel Co. was a debtor who had paid advance in accordance with the terms of
ITA No.1645/Kol/2012& C.O.150/Kol/2012 3
business when the purchases were made by it from the assessee. Having established
the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the third party the ld. CIT(A) held
that the provision of section 68 of the Act were not applicable in the case of the
assessee. On the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act the ld. CIT(A)observed
that the amount had already been paid and nothing was distinguished and in view of
the Special Bench decision by ITAT in the case of Merlyn Shipping& Transproters in
ITA NO.477/Vizag/2008 held that the same cannot be considered for re-assessment
u/s 147/148 of the Act in so far as, he categorically observed that these two additions
or disallowances were not the subject matter for reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the
Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Jet
Airways Ltd. reported in 331 ITR 236 (Bom) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) in
compliance to deletion of the said decision. It has been submitted that the Special
Bench decision viz. Merilyn Shipping & Transporters has been considered by the
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which decision is to be reported. In view thereof we
restore this issue to the file of the ld. AO for reconsideration and to give effect as per
their direction. This ground is considered allowed for statistical purposes.
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1