Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Salasar Stock Broking Ltd on 27 November, 2008
3. The first and foremost issue that arises for our apt adjudication in
former twin Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 is as to whether
3
ITA Nos.899 to 901 &
1083 to 1086/Hyd/2017
regular assessments in assessee's cases could be held to be pending as
per section 153A(1) second proviso or not. Learned CIT-DR fails to
dispute the clinching statutory provision i.e. 143(2) second proviso
envisages time limit of six months from the end of the relevant
assessment year coming to 30.09.2011 and 30.09.2012 had already
expired before the date of search on 14.12.2012 (supra). No assessment
in these two assessment years could be held to be pending which could
be taken as "abated". And also that the assessee had raised all the
corresponding claims in regular computation while filing the foregoing
regular returns. We thus quote CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573
(Delhi); CIT Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (Cal.
Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 vs M/S Continental Warehousing ... on 9 July, 2018
H C in GA 1929/2016)
dt.24.8.2016, CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Coporation (2015) 374
ITR 64 (Bom) that section 153A proceedings in such instance of
unabated assessment could only be initiated in case if any incriminating
material is found or seized during the course of search. We have not
come across any such incriminating material relied upon by the learned
lower authorities in A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12.
Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar on 4 September, 2019
We thus decline the
Revenue's argument quoting EN Gopa Kumar Vs. CIT (2016) 390 ITR 131
4
ITA Nos.899 to 901 &
1083 to 1086/Hyd/2017
(Ker), CIT Vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar ITA No.270/2014 and CIT Vs.
Rajkumar Arora 367 ITR 517 (All) to hold that the impugned assessments
are not sustainable in law since not based on any incriminating material
found or seized during the course of search. The same stands quashed
in the former twin assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The
assessee's corresponding appeals ITA Nos.1083 and 1084/Hyd/2017 are
accepted on the forgoing legal issue thereby rendering all other
pleadings on merit being rendered infructuous.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Kabul Chawla on 29 March, 2016
3. The first and foremost issue that arises for our apt adjudication in
former twin Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 is as to whether
3
ITA Nos.899 to 901 &
1083 to 1086/Hyd/2017
regular assessments in assessee's cases could be held to be pending as
per section 153A(1) second proviso or not. Learned CIT-DR fails to
dispute the clinching statutory provision i.e. 143(2) second proviso
envisages time limit of six months from the end of the relevant
assessment year coming to 30.09.2011 and 30.09.2012 had already
expired before the date of search on 14.12.2012 (supra). No assessment
in these two assessment years could be held to be pending which could
be taken as "abated". And also that the assessee had raised all the
corresponding claims in regular computation while filing the foregoing
regular returns. We thus quote CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573
(Delhi); CIT Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (Cal.
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
We thus quote hon'ble
apex court landmark decision in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT
243 ITR 83 (SC) and hold that the learned PCIT has rightly exercised its
263 revision jurisdiction in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
The same stand confirmed. The assessee's instant appeal ITA
No.901/Hyd/2017 fails.
Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. on 7 December, 2016
6. We are now left with the assessee's appeal ITA No.901/Hyd/2017
for Assessment Year 2012-13. The same pertains to the exercise of the
PCIT's revision jurisdiction holding the corresponding assessment
dt.31.3.2015 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to the interest of
Revenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to compute
115JB section MAT qua assessee's provision for bad and doubtful debts
of Rs.1968.10 lakhs as per Expln.(1)(i) of the Act. Learned counsel
submitted before us that the assessee had very well made simultaneous
reduction from the loans and advances on the assets side of the Balance
Sheet which amounted to write of of the said debts not hit by the
foregoing statutory provision. Mr. Afzal quoted hon'ble Gujarat high
court's Full Bench decision in CIT Vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited
dt.4.8.2017. We find no merit in the assessee's foregoing argument
since it has not placed on record the corresponding books of account
suggesting corresponding simultaneous reduction of the loans and
7
ITA Nos.899 to 901 &
1083 to 1086/Hyd/2017
advances on the asset side of the Balance Sheet.
1