Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.38 seconds)Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 1994
41. Therefore, it becomes clear that liberal interpretation of an incentive
provision is possible if there is any doubt. As we have seen above that if
various sub sections of section 80IC are read carefully it leaves no doubt
that deduction was meant only for new units or in case of old units if
substantial expansion was carried out in such old units and deduction was
available only for a period of 10 years. Therefore, there is no question of
giving any interpretation much less liberal interpretation to section 80IC
when the reading of whole section makes the provision very clear. As
observed in case of M/s Novapan India Ltd v Collector of Central Excise and
Customs (supra) the burden was on the assessee to show under which clause
he was entitled to the deduction but assessee is simply asserting before us
that there is no restriction for deduction in case of substantial expansion of
new units. In our opinion, that is not enough because absence of restriction
does not mean that particular deduction was allowable.
Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010
In the case of Dinakar Ullal vs CIT 323 ITR 452(Karnataka), the
assessee was a Civil contractor and had filed belated return declaring
income of Rs. 50,240/- and was claiming refund of Rs. 2,14,505/- on account
of tax deducted at source. The last date of filing the return was 31.3.1997
but the return was filed late on 8 t h September 1997. The assessee sought
condonation of delay by an application filed on 21 s t Sept, 1998 by invoking
section 119(2)(b) of the Act which was initially rejected. However, on a
writ petition the order for rejection was quashed by a single judge and
remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. On remand, the
Commissioner who was vested with the jurisdiction under Instruction No.13
of 2006 in respect of claim upto Rs. 10 lakhs accepted the cause shown for
delay in filing the return but denied interest on refund amount in view of the
condition set out in Circular No. 670 dated 26 t h Oct 1993. Therefore,
question before the Court was whether these instructions were contrary to
the provision of section 244A of the Act which provided for payment of
interest on refunds. This becomes absolutely clear from the question framed
by Hon'ble Court which is contained at placitum 6 and reads as under:-
Section 10C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
The Bench mainly dealt with the provision of section 263 and in view of
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co
Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) held that since view taken by the Assessing
Officer is also possible view, therefore, assessment order was not erroneous.