×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.
12-03-2019, Jubilant Life sciences, Section 115J, 43(1), Tribunal Delhi
1. This is bunch of 15 appeals pertaining to one assessee for several assessment years involving some common grounds of appeal. Some of these appeals are filed before 16 years; they are being adjourned under one pretext or other. From the pendency of one appeal for assessment year 2000 – 01 in 2003, now it has become a pendency of 15 appeals of the same assessee over a period of 16 years. Each year appeals are being piled up in the pendency before us. It would be fruitless to find out who is responsible for non-disposal of these appeals for all these years, because the answer is that all stakeholders i.e. Assessee revenue and of course this tribunal is responsible for this state of affairs unquestionably. These matters were adjourned for more than 35 times in past. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, an attempt was made to dispose of all these appeals. At request of parties, we have heard them together and disposed of by this common order.
ITA No 4410/Del/2003
2. First, we take up ITA number 4410/del/2003 for assessment year 2000 – 01 filed by learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 1, Moradabad (learned AO) against order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly dated 10/7/2003 wherein learned AO has raised following grounds of appeal.
“1. that LD CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing AO not to enhance book profit by a sum of Rs. 10540000/- which represents depreciation on revalued assets for purpose of section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in not enhancing book profit by amount of depreciation on revalued assets in light of CBDT letter No. 385/96/88-IT(8) dated 31.01.89 as well as SLP reported in 212 ITR 61 pending on issue involved.
3. The ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case is directing Assessing Officer not to enhance book profit by Rs. 75230705/- for purpose of computation of book profit u/s 115JA as this amount is not actual profit derived from an industrial undertaking engaged in business of generation or generation and distribution or power.
4. That ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate facts before allowing relief of Rs. 75230705/- that assessee had generated power for internal consumption of its existing units and it was not distributed for purpose of business.
5. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law not rejecting assessee‟s plea that an undertaking for generation of distribution of power is separate and independent unit while it is not fact and there is no separate viable unit. Assessee simply prepared income and expenditure account on proportionate basis
6. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in accepting assessee‟s explanation that net profit shown in P/L a/c cannot be disturbed as per decision of Apex Court reported in 255 ITR 273 while facts of decision are distinguishable with facts of case.
7. That ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate facts that assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 10540000/- on account of transfer of revelation reserve while computing book profit u/s 115JA which is not allowable as per explanation to section 115JA(2) since profit and loss was not credited by Rs. 10540000/-.
8. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of Rs. 57052010/- made on a/c of interest on borrowed capital utilized in explanation and modification projects as per explanation 8 to section 43(1) of Act.
9. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law erred on facts of case in treating expenditure of Rs. 2600000/- incurred installation of Software System as revenue expenses while assessing office correctly treated it as capital in nature.
10. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in allowing relief of Rs. 2600000/- while assessing officer has rightly addressed same and allowed depreciation accordingly which finds support from decision reported in 259 ITR 30 (Raj) wherein decision of Hon‟ble Apex court reported in 166 ITR 66 was followed.
11. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing AO to treat sum of Rs. 14389000/- and Rs. 34364/- as business income which was correctly assessed under head Income from other source.
12. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing to treat service charges of Rs. 2163586/- as business income.
13. that ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2098978/- incurred on books and journals, which was taken as capital expenses by Assessing Officer ass assessee admitted that books are tools for its business activities.
14. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in treating expenses incurred in purchase of books as revenue expenses while Assessing Officer has rightly taken it capital in nature and treated it as a plant as per section 43(3) and reliance is placed on decisions reported in 132 ITR 401 (Guj) 129 ITR 73 and 206 ITR 30 (Cal)
15. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law on facts of case in allowing relief of Rs. 9131504/- out of Rs. 9829097/- disallowed on account payment of provident fund.
16. That ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of case in deleting prior period expenses of Rs. 5862377/- while assessing officer has correctly disallowed it.
17. That ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of case in directing Assessing Officer to allow deduction of Rs. 8184685/- u/s 35 of Act which as rightly been added by AO.