Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.43 seconds)Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
8. On the other hand, the DR vehemently argued and
supported the order of the CIT. He submitted that it is abundantly
clear from the language of section 80IB(14)(g) that as on the last day
of the previous year the assessee should be a small scale industrial
undertaking. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to examine and see
that the investment in the plant and machinery of the assessee was
not more than ` 3 crores. As the investment in plant and machinery of
the assessee as on the last day of the previous year ended on
31.3.2006 exceed the prescribed limit of ` 3 crores, the CIT was fully
:- 9 -: I.T.A.No. 79/2011
justified in invoking his power u/s 263 of the Act and directing the
Assessing Officer to examine the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB to
the assessee. He further argued and submitted that as will be
observed from the assessment order that there is no whisper by the
Assessing Officer regarding the examining of the allowance of
deduction u/s 80IB of the Act to the assessee and therefore, the CIT
was fully justified in passing an order u/s 263 of the Act and directing
the Assessing Officer to examine the same. He relied on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd
vs CIT , [2000] 243 ITR 83(S.C) wherein it was held as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Paul Brothers on 16 October, 1992
"6. We have considered the submissions. We find that the
submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of
this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of
Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in
this case, it is not necessary for us to decide whether SEEPZ unit
was set up/formed by splitting up of the first unit. In both the above
decisions, this Court has held that where a benefit of deduction is
available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain
conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless
relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was
made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax
officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More
particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there
was any change in the facts warranting a different view for
subsequent years. In this case for the assessment years 2000-01
and 2001-02 the relief granted under Section 10A of the Act to
SEEPZ unit has not been withdrawn. There is no change in the
facts which were in existence during the assessment
year 2000-01 vis a vis the claim to exemption under section 10A of
the Act. Therefore, it is not open to the department to deny the
benefit of Section 10A for subsequent assessment years i. e.
assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and 2004-05. Besides that,
on consideration of the facts involved both the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of
fact that the SEEPZ unit is not formed by splitting up of the first
unit."
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sohana Woollen Mills on 22 September, 2006
23. Lastly, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs Sohana Woollen Mills (supra)
wherein it was held that mere audit objection, and merely because a
different view can be taken are not enough to hold that the order of
the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the
Revenue. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court held that if two views are
possible then merely to take a different view, the provisions of section
263 cannot be invoked by the CIT.