Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. Tr. M.D vs Commr.Of Income Tax, Dehradun on 15 March, 2010
(2010) 322 ITR 180 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
loss claimed by the assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign
exchange loans as on the date of balance sheet was allowable as expenditure
under section 37(1). The assessee, in this case, has claimed that the loan was
used by the assessee for its business purposes and that the said exchange loss is
on revenue account, however, the assessee had not submitted the necessary
details before the AO. We accordingly restore this issue to the file of the AO
for necessary verifications and to decide the issue in the light of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Oil and Natural Gas Corpiration
Ltd. vs. CIT" (supra).
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
16. We may observe that since the AO had disallowed the claim of the
assessee for set off of unabsorbed depreciation then under the circumstances
the AO was duty bound to consider the alternate claim of the assessee. The
assessee was not supposed to make the claim under section 115JAA since the
taxable income computed by the assessee under normal provisions was nil.
We may further observe that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
'Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd.' ITA No.3908 of 2010 decided on
21.06.12, while relying upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and other Hon'ble High Courts has held that even if a claim is not made
before the AO it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction
of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim is not barred. The Hon'ble
High Court has further observed that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of 'Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT' (2006) 157 Taxman 1,
relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was
limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does
not impinge on the power or negate the powers of the appellate authorities to
entertain such claim by way of additional ground. Even otherwise, the Ld.
CIT(A) ought to have considered the claim of the assessee in exercise of his
appellate jurisdiction under section 250 of the Act. However, in view of the
8 ITA Nos.6406/M/2012 & 6152/M/2013
M/s. S. Kant Healthcare Ltd.
Section 43A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Motor And General Finance Ltd. vs Dcit, Spl. Range-16 on 29 January, 2004
6. We find that the time limit of eight years is prescribed for carry forward
of unabsorbed losses under section 72(3) of the Income Tax Act. However,
there is no maximum time limit prescribed either under section 72 or under
section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act for carry forward of unabsorbed
depreciation. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in the case of "General Motors India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT"
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pride Foramer S.A. (Formerly Known As ... vs Acit, Spl. Range on 14 July, 2005
13. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal, we hereby
delete the addition on this issue.
1