Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.70 seconds)Dcit(Central), Circle-4(3), Kolkata, ... vs M/S. Rei Agro Ltd., Kolkata on 5 April, 2017
6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that the satisfaction was not
recorded by the AO giving cogent reasons for rejecting the suo-moto
computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by the assessee. He relied on
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd.
vs. CIT in civil Appeal No. 104 to 109 of 2015 judgment dated 12.02.2018 as
well as on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.
REI Agro Ltd. in G.A. No. 3022/2013 ITAT No. 161 of 2013 order dated
23.12.2013, wherein the decision of "A" Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in I.T.A.
No. 1811/Kol/2016 in the case of DCIT vs. REI Agro Ltd. was upheld , for the
proposition that cogent reasons have to be recorded by the AO as to why he is
not in agreement with the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee.
Exide Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India . on 7 January, 2015
10. We set aside this issue to the file of the AO to fresh adjudication in
accordance with law. The assessing officer may either wait for the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. supra or may
consider the alternative plea of the assessee that the claim be allowed on actual
payment basis and if it is so done, the assessee would withdraw all the pending
litigation, for all the years, wherein he sought deduction of the provision made
for the leave encashment. Hence, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Trf Ltd vs Commnr. Of Income Tax on 9 February, 2010
13. We have considered the letter written by the official receiver Mr. A. Paul to
the assessee dated 14.02.2011 which is at page 116 of the paper book. As per the
order passed on 15.05.2009 the Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjib Banerjee of the
Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the assessee receiver had handed over cheques
to the tune of Rs. 1,54,94,333/- to the assessee, by way of full and final
settlement. The term 'Full and Final Settlement' shown that the balance amount
is not recoverable. From the above letter dated 14.02.2011 it is clear that the
assessee had written off bad debts in its accounts based on cogent material. Once
the bad debt is written off, it should be allowed as a deduction as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. supra. On the objection of the
Ld. CIT DR, we find that the assessee has made a provision for doubtful debts in
the profit and loss account of the assessee in the earlier assessment years and
hence it is clear that these amounts were taken into account by the assessee in
the earlier assessment years hence the conditions specified u/s 36(1)(vii) of the
Act are satisfied. Hence this ground of the assessee is allowed.
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit(Appeals) vs Rei Six Ten Retail Ltd on 29 October, 2014
"We find from the facts of the above case that the AO has not examined the account so
the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO about the correctness of
the claim of the assessee and without the same he invoked Rule 8D of the Rules. While
rejecting the cliam of the assessee with regard to expenditure or no expenditure, as the
case may be, in relation to exempted income, the AO has to indicate cogent reasons for
the same".
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1