9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 230 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT - Tribunal has rightly held that the appeal has become academic in view of the fact that the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 even after inclusion of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was ₹ 314.84 Lakhs, against which the claim under Section 80IA allowed by the Assessing Officer was at ₹ 322.05 Lakhs. The Tribunal also considered that even the CIT (A) has also allowed the revised claim of deduction made by the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act, 1961 at ₹ 630.35 Lakhs keeping in mind the fact that the income of the assessee prior to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was ₹ 314.84/-. Lakhs. Therefore, the issue of revised claim made by the assessee of ₹ 690.35 Lakhs is of no consequence. Similarly, for the A.Y.1997-98, the assessee's total income prior to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, 1961 stands assessed at ₹ 190.68 Lakhs. However, the eligibility to deduction under Section 80IA stands confirmed by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 354.02 Lakhs. Therefore, the consideration of revised claim of ₹ 487.39 Lakhs is no consequence as the assessed income is much less than the eligibility under Section 80IA of the Act, 1961. Disallowance of consultancy fees - HELD THAT - Both, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal have given concurrent findings of fact and, hence, we answer Question (B) being factual in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of consultancy fees paid to M/s. B.B. Electricals. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The case involved tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed against a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main questions of law revolved around the allowance of a revised claim of deduction under Section 80IA and the deletion of disallowance of consultancy fees. The respondent-assessee initially claimed a deduction of a certain amount under Section 80IA, which was later revised during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer rejected the revised claim and limited it to the original amount. The CIT (A) then directed the Assessing Officer to accept the revised working, but the Assessing Officer again rejected the revised claim. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, stating that the revised claim made by the assessee would be of no consequence as the total income was already assessed at a lower amount. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the revised claim did not affect the final assessed income significantly. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld. Issue 2: Disallowance of Consultancy Fees Regarding the disallowance of consultancy fees paid to M/s. B.B. Electricals, both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal provided concurrent findings of fact in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeals on this ground, as the issue was deemed factual and had already been decided in favor of the assessee by the lower authorities. Consequently, the tax appeals were dismissed, and the decision was in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the revised claim under Section 80IA was of no consequence due to the already assessed income. Additionally, the disallowance of consultancy fees was decided in favor of the assessee based on factual findings by the lower authorities. Therefore, the tax appeals were dismissed, and the judgment favored the assessee.
|
