Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.42 seconds)Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
23. Learned counsel lastly submits that the assessee's sixth substantive ground
seeks deduction of 1,91,524/- representing expenditure relatable to the relevant
13
ITA 1962/Del to 1967/Del/2016 & ITA 2357 to 2362/Del/2016
assessment year but debited in the P&L a/c of the succeeding assessment year i.e.
in the nature of "prior period expenditure". Our attention is further invited to this
tribunal's common order in it's appeal ITA 1955 to 1959/Del/2016 relevant to
A.Y. 2001-02 to A.Y. 2005-06 pages 142 para 14, wherein the very claim of prior
period expenditure was restored back to the CIT(A). And that the instant ground is
indeed revenue neutral instance wherein the impugned expenditure ought to be
allowed either in the year of accrual or that of crystallization; as the case may be.
We are further informed that the learned lower authorities have followed Goetz
India Ltd. v. CIT (supra) to reject the instant last claim as well.
M/S. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax.Andhra ... on 19 September, 1997
5. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee's stand all along that the above
subsidy/ incentives receivable under the sugar industrial promotion policy, 2004 is
in the nature of a capital receipt going by the "purpose test" in light of Sahney
Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Others v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v.
Pony Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC); & CIT v. Chaphalkar
Brothers (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC).
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Madras vs M/S. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd on 16 September, 2008
5. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee's stand all along that the above
subsidy/ incentives receivable under the sugar industrial promotion policy, 2004 is
in the nature of a capital receipt going by the "purpose test" in light of Sahney
Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Others v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v.
Pony Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC); & CIT v. Chaphalkar
Brothers (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC).
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolhapur vs M/S Chaphalkar Brothers Pune on 7 December, 2017
5. Learned counsel reiterates the assessee's stand all along that the above
subsidy/ incentives receivable under the sugar industrial promotion policy, 2004 is
in the nature of a capital receipt going by the "purpose test" in light of Sahney
Steel and Press Works Ltd. & Others v. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC); CIT v.
Pony Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC); & CIT v. Chaphalkar
Brothers (2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC).
Chainrup Sampatram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 9 October, 1953
8. That being the case and despite the assessee having argued in favour of the
"purpose" test (supra), we are of the considered view that since the issue herein is
very much pending before their lordships for final adjudication, it would indeed be
pre mature for us to apply "accrual" principle at this stage for lack of any
reasonable certainty in recognition of revenue as per Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT
(1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC). Their lordships have categorically held that a revenue
receipt could be recognized as an income only in case there arise a reasonable
certainty thereof. We reiterate that the Revenue's clear cut case is that the same has
indeed been not actually received all along as the dispute is pending before hon'ble
7
ITA 1962/Del to 1967/Del/2016 & ITA 2357 to 2362/Del/2016
apex court. We, accordingly are of the considered view that the instant common
first and foremost issue between the parties is required to be re-adjudicated by the
learned Assessing Officer after it is decided in the hon'ble supreme court so as to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings. We order accordingly. It is made clear tht the
assessee indeed be at liberty to raise all legal and factual pleas in consequential
proceedings.
Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 9 August, 2000
14. We find merit in the assessee's arguments as the learned CIT(A) has simply
brushed aside it's impugned provision for after sales expenditure etc. by
observing, "The ground taken by the appellant in its appeal memo settles the
issue". Meaning thereby that the assessee's scientific computation herein has
nowhere been specifically dealt with or rejected as the learned lower authorities
have declined it's provision of the impugned expenditure raised for meeting future
anticipated liabilities as per Bharat Earth Movers (supra). Coupled with this, the
assessee has already succeeded on the very issue before hon'ble jurisdiction high
court hereinabove. We, thus see no substance in the Revenue's vehement
contentions supporting the impugned disallowance, which stands deleted therefore.
Messrs. Calcutta Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 12 May, 1959
12. We now advert to the assessee's instant grievance seeking to allow the
impugned provision wherein case law Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245
ITR 428 (SC); Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); & CIT v.
Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 374 (Delhi) i.e. the assessee
itself, in paras 6,7,8 & 11 has held that such a provision based on scientific
computation formula could indeed be allowed.