Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Taikisha Engineering India Ltd on 25 November, 2014
37. Before us, nothing is available either in the impugned orders, or by
of any other material on record, to suggest that the assessment orders
were unsustainable in law. As observed in 'DLF India' (supra), possibly,
the AO could have taken a view different from the one taken by him, but
he did not do so and this would not render his opinion as an
unsustainable opinion warranting exercise of revisional powers. The
undisputed stand of the assessee is that it did not earn any exempt
income during the relevant years. Therefore also, no disallowance u/s 14A
was called for.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Lakhani Marketing Inc on 3 December, 2010
The decision in 'Lakhani Marketing Inc.' (supra), Holcim
India Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), 'Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) and 'Shivam
Motors Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) are to the same effect. Too, as per section 14A(3),
where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in
relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the
Act, the provisions of section 14A(2) shall not apply, i.e., the AO shall not
determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income
which does not form part of the total income under the Act."
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Holcim India P. Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
The decision in 'Lakhani Marketing Inc.' (supra), Holcim
India Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), 'Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) and 'Shivam
Motors Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) are to the same effect. Too, as per section 14A(3),
where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in
relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the
Act, the provisions of section 14A(2) shall not apply, i.e., the AO shall not
determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income
which does not form part of the total income under the Act."
Bharat Beedi Works (Private) Limited ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 May, 1993
Further, in the case of Bharat
Beedi Works (p) Ltd vs Adcil CIT, it was held by the Hon'ble Karnataka
High Court that the burden was upon the assessee to show and prove that
interest tree fund far exceeded the value of investment and that in the
present case, the said burden had net been discharged satisfactorily and
thereafter, the assessing officer had proceeded to apply the formula
provided under Rule 8D(2)(ii) read with Section 14A of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv vs Dlf Universal Ltd. on 21 December, 2016
In this regard, the proposition settled in 'DLF Limited' (supra) is that
the powers u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked for making disallowance
u/s 14A of the Act. While observing so, it was held that it is not mere
prejudice to the Revenue or a mere erroneous view, which can be revised
u/s 263 of the Act and that there should exist the added element of
sustainability in the order of the AO, which clothes the CIT (here, the Pri.
CIT) with jurisdiction to issue notice and proceed to make appropriate
order.
Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs Corrtech Energy Pvt ... on 24 March, 2014
The decision in 'Lakhani Marketing Inc.' (supra), Holcim
India Pvt. Ltd.' (supra), 'Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) and 'Shivam
Motors Pvt. Ltd.' (supra) are to the same effect. Too, as per section 14A(3),
where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in
relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the
Act, the provisions of section 14A(2) shall not apply, i.e., the AO shall not
determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income
which does not form part of the total income under the Act."
Cheminvest Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi on 2 September, 2015
v) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT-IV', 378 ITR 33 (Delhi)
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Eli Lilly & Company (India) P.Ltd on 25 March, 2009
33. It has been contended that so far as regards the assessment years
2008-09 to 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 , the assessments for the said years have been
framed prior to 3 1 . 0 3 . 2 0 1 2 , whereas the notices u/s 263 of the Act had
been issued much after the statutory period of two years, from the end of
the previous year in which the assessment was framed, i.e., in Nov,
2 0 1 5 . Therefore, according to the assessee, the issue of disallowance u/s
14A of the Act ought not to have been raised by the Pri. CIT in the
concerned notices, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A having not been
discussed in the reassessment proceedings for all these years. For this,
reliance has been placed on 'CIT vs. Cheminvest Ltd.' (supra) and 'CIT,
Chennai vs. Alagendran Finance Limited', 293 ITR 1 (SC) and 'CIT vs.
ICICI Bank Limited', 343 ITR 74 (Bom.).