Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, ... vs Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 31 December, 2019

In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Special bench of this Tribunal in Rain Commodities Ltd. (supra) this issue is no longer res-integra and therefore we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the action of AO on this issue, which does not require any interference from our part, so we confirm his action and dismiss this ground of assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Raymond Ltd on 21 March, 2012

And it is noted that the amount transferred to DRR is not in excess of the amount to be required to paid at the time of repayment of the debentures, so it cannot be treated as reserve for the purpose of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956; and as discussed the amount set apart to meet a known liability as such the DRR cannot be considered as 'reserve' to attract explanation 1(b) of section 115JB of the Act. Moreover, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim by referring to the decision of this Tribunal in SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 424/Kol/2011 wherein the Tribunal has relied on the ratio of the decision laid by the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Raymond Ltd. (2012) 71 DTR 265 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that mere fact that the debenture redemption reserve is labeled as a reserve will not render it as a reserve and an amount which is retained by way of providing a known liability is not a reserve within the meaning of explanation (b) of section 115JA of the Act. Therefore, in view of the discussion (supra) we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue.

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd., ... on 17 December, 2018

"The assessee's additional last/ substantive ground avers that it is entitled for the educations secondary higher education cess as overhead deduction amounting to Rs. 423618317 u/s 37 of the Act. We note that hon'ble Rajasthan high court's decision in DB Income Tax Appeal No. 52/Kol/2018 M/s Chambal Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT decided on 31.07.2018 takes into account CBDT circular dated 18.05.1967 for holding such cess(es) to be allowable as deduction. Their lordships hold that section 40a(ii) applies only on taxes such than earn cess(es). We therefore reject the Revenue's contentions supporting the impugned disallowance. The assessee's instant substantive ground is accepted. The Assessing Officer is direction to verify all the relevant facts and allow the impugned cess (es) as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The assessee's appeal I.T.A. No. 685/Ko/2014 is partly accepted in above terms.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

National Rayon Corporation Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 July, 1997

11. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that an amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- was transferred by the assessee to Debenture Redemption Reserve (DRR) which was required to be paid at the time of redemption of the debentures and the assessee claimed exclusion of it while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. However the AO was of the opinion that the amount carried to any 'reserve' need to be added as per Explanation 1(b) of Section 115JB of the Act and added it while computing the book profit. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of assessee and excluded it from book profit. When we examine this issue we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Rayon Corporation Vs. CIT 227 ITR 164 (SC) has held that " the basic principle is that an amount set apart to meet a known liability cannot be regarded as reserve". It is common knowledge that by issuing debentures a company takes a loan which it has to repay; and the loan is taken against the security of its 6 ITA No. 1390/Kol/2019 & CO No. 20/Kol/2020 M/s. India Power Corporation Ltd., AY: 2013-14 assets. Even though the loan need not be repaid in the year of account, the obligation to repay exists, therefore, any money that is set apart to meet a known liability is shown in the Balance Sheet under the head liability. Since in the present case the amount of Rs.3.50 cr. was transferred to DRR which was compulsory u/s 117C of Companies Act, 1956 which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1   2 Next