Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

06-09-2019, Aries Agro, Section 35D, 147, 251(1), Tribunal Mumbai

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 week 1 day ago #10733 by amit
Section - 35D, 147, 251(1), 251(1)(a)
Order Date - 06-09-2019
Favouring - Revenue
Court - Tribunal Mumbai
Appellant - Aries Agro Ltd
Respondent - DCIT
Justice - G. MANJUNATHA AM & RAM LAL NEGI JM
Citation - 919Taxpundit62
Appeal No. - ITA No.557,558 & 559/Mum/2018
Asstt. Year - 2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11

Order

PER : G.MANJUNATHA (A M):

This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-22, Mumbai, all dated 30/11/2017 and they pertain to Assessment Year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposedoff by this consolidated order.

2. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for all assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal taken for AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 557/Mum/2018 are reproduced below:-

1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the following grounds of appeal of assessee for reopening the assessment by issuing the Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

a. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment by issuing the Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

b. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not concealed any income or has not furnished inaccurate particulars of any income.

c. The Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopeningof assessment was in the nature of enquiry and hence the same is bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-22, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of proposed by the assessing officer by dismissing the objection of assessee for the claim under section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

3. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the disallowance under section 35D to the tune of Rs. 80,96,690/- and adding it to the total income of the assessee.

4. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in restricting the claim for deduction u/s 35D to Rs. 19,16,276/- as against Rs. 1,00,12,966/- claimed by the assessee.

5. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in computing the 'Capital Employed" at Rs. 19,16,27,690/- as against Rs. 1,02,76,15,571/- as per the explanation (b)(i) to sub section (3) of section 35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in not considering Rs. 54,01,01,880/-[45,00,849 shares of Rs. 120/- each issued under IPO) the share premium as part of Capital employed and making additional addition of Rs.39,33,724/-

7. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in making the enhancement without jurisdiction to make enhancement u/s 251(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Appellate commissioner's powers to enhance an assessment is confined to first assessment u/s 143/147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and not to re-assessment (second assessment) u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.. The facts referring to above the CIT erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal for initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961

9. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other.

10. The assessee prays for leave to add, alter or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing.

3. The brief facts of the case extracted from ITA No. 557/Mum/2018 for AY 2008-09 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Micronutrients Fertilizers and Feed Additives, filed its return of income for AY 2008 09 on 24/09/2008, declaring total income of Rs. 13,86,57,050/-. The assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 30/11/2010, determining the total income at Rs. 13,87,82,050/ . Subsequently, the assessment has been reopened u/s 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, after duly recording reasons, which have been reproduced by the AO at para 2 on pages 1 and 2 of assessment order, as per which income chargeable to tax had been escaped assessment, on account of excessive claim of deduction u/s 35D, in respect of share issue expenses, accordingly notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961, dated 31/03/2015 was issued and duly served on the assesse. In response to notice, the assessee vide letter dated 11/04/2015, requested to treat, the original return filed on 12/10/2010 as return filed pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Aries Agro Ltd vs. DCIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.083 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar