Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.62 seconds)Section 80J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80HH in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
7. The only question that now remains to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner in respect of deduction granted under section 80HH of the Act. The Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the assessee has adopted consistent approach in the earlier years for apportioning the expenditure between the two units, old and new, which was accepted by the department. In paragraph 9 of its order, the Tribunal has, in terms, observed that the method followed by the assessee of dividing the overhead expenses on a proportionate basis in the proportion of 5.5 : 4.5 was adopted for the assessment year 1978-79 as well as 1980-81. It was held that when such consistent basis was adopted there was no reason to interfere in the matter when it was not shown to be irrational. It is well settled that the provisions of section 263(1) cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the assessing officer, and it is only when the order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has observed that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. It was held that when two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It is not shown how the method followed by the assessee to divide the expenses for the purpose of claiming relief under section 80HH was improper or unacceptable. The Income Tax Officer as well as the Tribunal has found that the expenses were apportioned on a rational basis and it would not be open for this court to go beyond that finding which appears to have been reached on the basis of the material on record which showed that in the earlier years same proportion for dividing the expenses was consistently followed. The department has not been able to show that for those earlier two years any objection was raised against such apportionment.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat-I, ... vs Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad on 23 January, 1996
5. It is obvious that when the decision of the Income Tax Officer on the aspect of deduction granted under section 80J was already considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), who had made an order earlier than the revisional order made by the Commissioner under section 263, the order of the Income Tax Officer as regards such deduction under section 80J had already merged in the appellate order. There was, therefore, no order of the Income Tax Officer which could have been revised by the Commissioner under section 263 on the question of grant of benefit of section 80J of the Act to the assessee. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC), in the context of the provisions of section 263(1) of the Act, referring to Explanation (c) thereof, held that powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 263 extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in appeal. It, therefore, necessarily follows that the powers under section 263 could not have been invoked when the order taken in revision was already subjected to appeal and the appellate order was made in respect thereof as was made in the instant case.
T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 January, 2003
The learned counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that the decision of the Tribunal upholding the preliminary objection of the assessee on this count cannot be sustained, being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, in T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd.'s case (supra), and also against the decision of this court rendered in CIT v. Shreyas Land Development Corpn. (IT Reference No. 120 of 1986, dated 9-7-2001), which has followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. East Coast Marine Products (P) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 314 (AP).
Section 144A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs East Coast Marine Products (P.) Ltd. And ... on 1 February, 1989
The learned counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that the decision of the Tribunal upholding the preliminary objection of the assessee on this count cannot be sustained, being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, in T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd.'s case (supra), and also against the decision of this court rendered in CIT v. Shreyas Land Development Corpn. (IT Reference No. 120 of 1986, dated 9-7-2001), which has followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. East Coast Marine Products (P) Ltd. (1990) 181 ITR 314 (AP).