Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (2.02 seconds)Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 244A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tirupati Lpg Industries Ltd.,, New ... vs Assessee on 10 February, 2016
43. Before us, reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Triputi LPG Industries Limited Vs. DCIT(supra). In
this decision, the Bench has simply observed that main dispute is on the
definition of „initial assessment year‟. The provisions of sub section (2) and
sub section (3) as discussed in detail above have been totally ignored and,
therefore, this decision, in our opinion, is per inquerim and cannot be
followed.
Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad vs Collector Of Central Excise And ... on 14 September, 1994
41. Therefore, it becomes clear that liberal interpretation of an incentive
provision is possible if there is any doubt. As we have seen above that if
various sub sections of section 80IC are read carefully it leaves no doubt that
deduction was meant only for new units or in case of old units if substantial
expansion was carried out in such old units and deduction was available only
for a period of 10 years. Therefore, there is no question of giving any
interpretation much less liberal interpretation to section 80IC when the
reading of whole section makes the provision very clear. As observed in case
of M/s Novapan India Ltd v Collector of Central Excise and Customs (supra)
the burden was on the assessee to show under which clause he was entitled to
the deduction but assessee is simply asserting before us that there is no
restriction for deduction in case of substantial expansion of new units. In our
opinion, that is not enough because absence of restriction does not mean that
particular deduction was allowable.
Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010
In the case of Dinakar Ullal vs CIT 323 ITR 452(Karnataka), the assessee
was a Civil contractor and had filed belated return declaring income of Rs.
50,240/- and was claiming refund of Rs. 2,14,505/- on account of tax deducted
at source. The last date of filing the return was 31.3.1997 but the return was
filed late on 8th September 1997. The assessee sought condonation of delay by
an application filed on 21st Sept, 1998 by invoking section 119(2)(b) of the Act
which was initially rejected. However, on a writ petition the order for
rejection was quashed by a single judge and remitted the matter back for fresh
consideration. On remand, the Commissioner who was vested with the
jurisdiction under Instruction No.13 of 2006 in respect of claim upto Rs. 10
lakhs accepted the cause shown for delay in filing the return but denied
interest on refund amount in view of the condition set out in Circular No. 670
dated 26th Oct 1993. Therefore, question before the Court was whether these
instructions were contrary to the provision of section 244A of the Act which
provided for payment of interest on refunds. This becomes absolutely clear
Zee Laboratories V ITO ITA no 230 & 231/CHD/2016 A Y 2011-12 & 12-13
Page 6 of 20
from the question framed by Hon'ble Court which is contained at placitum 6
and reads as under:-