Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.91 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mukesh D. Manglani, Godhra vs The Acit, Central Circle-1,, Baroda on 18 December, 2019
8. Since, the issue has already been considered by the Tribunal and has
held that each unit of windmill has to be considered separately for
computing deduction u/s. 80IA(4), we see no reason to deviate from the
view already taken. No contrary judgment has been placed on record
before us by the Revenue. The Id. DR has pointed that the Department has
filed appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. D.J. Malpani
Vs. ACIT (supra), however, no order by the Hon'ble High Court either
staying or reversing the aforesaid decision of Tribunal has been furnished
by the Id. DR.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dewan Kraft System Pvt. Ltd. on 27 February, 2007
In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by
the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt
Ltd (supra), we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) was right
in allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 801A in respect of each unit
without setting off of loss incurred by other eligible units. Hence, we are
inclined to uphold the findings of L.d. CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by
the revenue.
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd on 2 December, 2009
If we look at the
scheme of the section 80IA(2), it speaks about the
"undertaking or "enterprise and not the business of the
assessee. Admittedly, three wind mills at the 3 locations are
independently operated and the financial results are
separately worked out. As per sub-sec. (5) of section 801A,
for computing the deduction u/s 80IA(2), the eligible business
is to be treated as the only source of income. Sub-sec.(5) of
section 801A has been explained by the Hon'ble High Court
and Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Accel Transmatic Systems
Ltd. 230 CTR 206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld.
CIT(A). The term "business" used in sub-sec.(5) section 801A
in our humble opinion is confined to the independent
undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses.
In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction undertaking" or
"Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec 80LAC) is
charging sections for determining basic eligibility and there
is no mention of word business Sub-sec (5) of Sec. 80IA
speaks of business but same is to be construed as business of
undertaking or Enterprise as referred to in Sub- sec (2) of See
80IA. It is well settled principle of interpretation of slutatory
provision that they are to be interpreted Harmoniously to
make workable to give intended results. Hence, as rightly
held by Ld. CIT(A) term "business" used its sec. 80IA(5) is to
be construed and understood to mean "Business" or ITA Νο.
815, 891, 1494 & 1600/PN/2011 Ms. J. Sans Foundry Pvt.
Ltd., Sangli 'undertaking or enterprise de our opinion, the Ld.
CITIA) in his well reasoned order has rightly held that every
unit constitute a separate undertaking engaged in the eligible
business and losses from one unit cannot be set off against the
profit of another unit engaged in the same business for the
purpose of computing the deduction u/s 801A. We find no
38
IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024
ITA No.427/PUN/2024
reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this
issue. Accordingly, the same are confirmed and grounds
taken by the revenue are dismissed.
Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works ... vs Dcit (Ltu), Circle-1 & 2, New Delhi on 12 December, 2022
14. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in
the cases of M/s. J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and m/s. L.B. Kunjir
vs. DCIT (supra) and various other decisions. Since the issue has already been
decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of
the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as various other decisions, therefore,
merely because the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has
challenged the decision before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending, cannot
be the basis for taking a contrary view than the view already taken by the Tribunal
in the case of the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and
dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue."
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Eco Rrb Infra Private Limited ( ... vs Dcit on 22 November, 2021
14. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in
the cases of M/s. J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and m/s. L.B. Kunjir
vs. DCIT (supra) and various other decisions. Since the issue has already been
decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of
the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as various other decisions, therefore,
merely because the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has
challenged the decision before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending, cannot
be the basis for taking a contrary view than the view already taken by the Tribunal
in the case of the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and
dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue."