×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.
08-02-2019, Gabriel India, Section 250, 271(1)(c), Tribunal Mumbai
This appeal, filed by Assessee , being ITA No. 2778/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 19.01.2017 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the Principal CIT(A)”) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-10/DCIT-5(1)(1)/96/2015- 16, for assessment year(AY) 2012-13, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 20.03.2015 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:-
“ Being aggrieved by the order passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"), your appellant submits the following grounds of appeal for your sympathetic consideration:
1. The learned C1T(A) erred in holding that income of INR 45,44,428/- being are not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on the ground that these incomes are not derived from the eligible undertaking without assigning any reasons for coming to this conclusion.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of miscellaneous expenses amounting to INR 7,13,304/- being 2% of the total miscellaneous expense of INR 3,56,65,622/- on the ground that veracity of such expenses cannot be verified authentically in the absence of proper bills and vouchers without identifying a single bill or voucher which is not verifiable.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal on initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on presumption of the ground being premature.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground substantively relating to charge of interest under section 234C of the Act despite the fact that the AO has neither given us any basis for charge of interest nor the calculations thereof.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal, if necessary.”
3. The assessee is manufacture and seller of Ride Control Products i.e. shock absorbers, struts, front forks and components thereof . The assessee is multiple location company having its units at Dewas (M.P.), Pune, Nasik, Parwanoo Hosur and Khandsa.
4. Exclusion of Other Income for deduction u/s 80IC:- The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IC of the 1961 Act to the tune of Rs. 11,03,71,511/- . From the details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings in respect of Parwanoo unit , the AO observed that the assessee has included following items of the income under the head „Other Sources‟ for the purpose of computing the profit of the undertakings , as detailed hereunder:-