Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Tangar Exports Llp, Ranipet vs Adit , Cpc , Bangalore / Acit, Vellore on 7 December, 2022 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Raghuvir Synthetics ... on 26 February, 2014

"5. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer has made adjustment of total income computed in the intimation received u/s.143(1) of the Act, towards deduction claimed u/s.80JJAA of the Act, in respect of employment of new employees on the ground that the assessee has not satisfied conditions prescribed therein, including filing of audit report in Form 10DA. It was explanation of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) that only prima-facie mistakes in computation of income can be adjusted in intimation received u/s.143(1), but not on the issues which need discussion and deliberation, including verification of documents. It is well settled principle of law by the decisions of various Courts, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (2017) 247 taxman.com 393(SC), if the issue involved is debatable, then same cannot be adjusted in intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, if you go through nature of adjustment made by the Assessing Officer towards deduction in respect of employment of new employees as per provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act, we find that the issue is highly debatable which can be resolved by deliberation, including verification of necessary documents and thus, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer cannot make adjustments towards deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act, while processing return u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete additions made towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. on 23 April, 1997

CIT vs Western outdoor interactive pvt ltd - 349 ITR 309 BOM CIT vs Arts & crafts exports 246 ctr 463 (Born) CIT vs Macbrout engineering pvt ltd 232 Taxman 406(Bom) CIT vs Tata communications internet services ltd 204 Taxman 606 (Del) - SLP dismissed 282 Taxman 462 (SC) CIT vs Paul bros 216 ITR 548 (Born) Direct information (p) ltd vs ITO 203 Taxman 70 (Born) 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80JJAA as directed in the DIRECT & binding decision of the Madras H.C in Craftsman automation P Ltd. vs CIT 435 ITR 558 (Mad) that the substantive benefit of a deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be denied on account of a procedural lapse of non filing of audit report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Silver And Arts Palace on 18 December, 2002

CIT vs Western outdoor interactive pvt ltd - 349 ITR 309 BOM CIT vs Arts & crafts exports 246 ctr 463 (Born) CIT vs Macbrout engineering pvt ltd 232 Taxman 406(Bom) CIT vs Tata communications internet services ltd 204 Taxman 606 (Del) - SLP dismissed 282 Taxman 462 (SC) CIT vs Paul bros 216 ITR 548 (Born) Direct information (p) ltd vs ITO 203 Taxman 70 (Born) 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80JJAA as directed in the DIRECT & binding decision of the Madras H.C in Craftsman automation P Ltd. vs CIT 435 ITR 558 (Mad) that the substantive benefit of a deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be denied on account of a procedural lapse of non filing of audit report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Checkmate Services P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 12 October, 2022

CIT vs Western outdoor interactive pvt ltd - 349 ITR 309 BOM CIT vs Arts & crafts exports 246 ctr 463 (Born) CIT vs Macbrout engineering pvt ltd 232 Taxman 406(Bom) CIT vs Tata communications internet services ltd 204 Taxman 606 (Del) - SLP dismissed 282 Taxman 462 (SC) CIT vs Paul bros 216 ITR 548 (Born) Direct information (p) ltd vs ITO 203 Taxman 70 (Born) 3.4 The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80JJAA as directed in the DIRECT & binding decision of the Madras H.C in Craftsman automation P Ltd. vs CIT 435 ITR 558 (Mad) that the substantive benefit of a deduction u/s 80JJAA cannot be denied on account of a procedural lapse of non filing of audit report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 378 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1