Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 10B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Tei Technologies Pvt. Ltd on 27 August, 2012
10. Ground No. 4 relates to disallowance of Rs. 4,42,53,603/- towards
claim of exemption under section 10AA of the Act. The Ld. AO has discussed
this issue in para 4.7 at page 8 of his order. The Ld. AO observed that after
reducing Rs. 57,14,754/- of the assessee's claim of deduction under section
10AA, the claim now stands at Rs. 4,42,53,603/- which claim is without
setting off losses of Rs. 16,38,14,384/- of other unit. The assessee had
claimed set off in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in CIT vs. TEI Technologists Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 25 taxmann.com 5 (Delhi). The
Ld. AO negated the claim of the assessee for the reason that SLP has been
filed by the Revenue against the decision (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Section 43B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T & Anr vs M/S Yokogawa India Ltd on 16 December, 2016
11. As stated by the Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of the
assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yokogawa India
Ltd.'s case (supra), we find no reason to sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A)
as the requisite details are already on records of the Revenue. Consequently,
we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AO is directed to verify the
8
ITA No. 6543/Del/18
details of carried forward losses and modify the assessment in the light of
the decision (supra) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court after allowing reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Joint Investments Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 February, 2015
5. We have heard the rival submissions, considered the arguments of the
parties and perused the material in the records. It is observed that before
the Ld. AO the assessee submitted, inter alia that during the year the
assessee received exempt income of Rs. 2802/- by way of dividend. Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Cheminvest Ltd. (supra)
held that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the
exempt income. Following the decisions (supra) of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court we retain the disallowance under section 14A of the Act to the extent
of Rs. 2802/- which is the admitted dividend income of the assessee in the
account year. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct
the Ld. AO to amend the assessment order accordingly.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Givo Ltd. on 27 July, 2010
14.4 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
The undisputed facts are that the amount of Rs. 8,22,26,422/- reflected in
the schedule of loan and advance is accumulation of advances given to Sh.
Nazar Singh in FY 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11. It has also not been
disputed that no disallowance of interest was made in those years on the
ground that borrowed funds were utilised for giving interest free advance to
Sh. Nazar Singh. On the other hand, the assessee explained that the
assessee had surplus funds of its own to give advance to Sh. Nazar Singh in
those years which was accepted by the Revenue. In the previous year
relevant to the AY presently under consideration, the assessee submitted
11
ITA No. 6543/Del/18
before the Ld. AO/CIT(A) that no advance has been given to Sh. Nazar Singh
at all, then only on presumption and conjecture, the impugned disallowance
is not warranted. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Givo Ltd. in ITA
No. 941/2010 dated 27.07.2010 observed that " ... it would not be equitable
to permit the Revenue to take a different stand in respect of expenses which
were the subject matter of previous years' assessment. In our opinion,
consistency and definiteness of approach by the Revenue is necessary in the
matter of recognising the nature of an account maintained by the assessee so
that the basis of a concluded assessment is not ignored without actually
reopening the assessment."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sridev Enterprises on 28 January, 1991
14.4.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision (supra) noticed with
approval the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Sridev
Enterprises (1991) 192 ITR 165 wherein it is held that a departure from a
finding in respect of deductions permitted during the past years would
result in a contradictory finding.
Union Of India vs M/S Exide Industries Ltd. on 24 April, 2020
"40. We have considered the rival submissions as well as material available on record.
There is no dispute that this expenditure on account of leave encashment has not been
actually paid by the assessee to the employees during the year under consideration
therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Exide
Industries Ltd. (supra), the same is allowable as deduction in the year of actually payment
and not in the year when the provisions is made. Therefore, this ground of the asseseee's
appeal stand dismissed. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the claim of
the assessee in the year when actual payment is made towards the leave encashment."