9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 521 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - profits and gains of the eligible unit on a reasonable basis under the proviso to Section 80IA(8) - HELD THAT - We find that the learned Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration and, therefore, we find that there is no substantial arising under this aspect for consideration. Nature of receipts - Sales Tax subsidy and Industrial Promotion Assistance - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT - The question has to be answered in favour of the respondent/assessee in the light of the Decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Budge Budge Refineries 2022 (2) TMI 533 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Hence, the said question is not admitted. Subsidy receipt by the assessee can not be deducted from the Written Down Value of the block of asset as per explanation 10 to Section 43(1) - HELD THAT - Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Birla Corporation Limited 2014 (12) TMI 436 - ITAT KOLKATA for the assessment year 2007-2008. As against the said decision of the learned Tribunal the revenue had filed appeal before this Court 2019 (9) TMI 1668 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - However, no such question has been raised in the said appeal. Therefore, the substantial question of law no. e is not admitted. Receipts on account of sale of CER (Certified Emission Reduction)/Carbon Credits - HELD THAT - As it is not admitted as it is covered by the decision in the case of S.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (1) TMI 1081 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which was rendered following various decisions and also taking note of Section 115 BBG of the Act, which has introduced by Finance Act 2017 with effect from April 1, 2018. Accordingly, question No. g is not admitted. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - disallowance on account of interest expenses as the assessee was having capital and reveue fund more than the amount of investment which has produced dividend income not forming part of total income - whether disallowance on account of other expenses could be made under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rule, 1962 in respect of those investments only which has produced dividend income excluding strategic investments? - HELD THAT - So far as substantial questions of law h i are concerned, those are admitted. Taxability of retention money -Tribunal holding that part of income being retention money is not chargeable to tax in the Assessment Year 2010-2011 - HELD THAT - As it is not admitted as it is covered in the light of the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mc Nally Sayaji Engineering Ltd. 2022 (3) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Capital receipt due to forfeiture of shares warrants - HELD THAT - As on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal we find that there is no factual position held to issue of convertible warrant and subsequent forfeiture were on capital gain ad the amount received was a capital receipt not liable to tax. Further the Tribunal held that there was no material on record to substantiate the allegation of tax evasion as recorded by the assessing officer. Thus we find that there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration on the said ground and hence question k is not admitted. Let the appellants file requisite number of informal paper book within a period of eight weeks from date prepared out of Court by serving advance copies on the respondent.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Reliance on specific case laws for assessment decisions 3. Determination of profits under Section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act 4. Tax treatment of Sales Tax subsidy and Industrial Promotion Assistance 5. Treatment of subsidy receipt under Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act 6. Applicability of Supreme Court decision on Assessing Officer and DRP powers 7. Taxability of receipts from sale of CER/Carbon Credits 8. Disallowance of interest expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 9. Disallowance of other expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 10. Taxability of retention money 11. Treatment of capital receipt due to forfeiture of shares warrants 12. Carry forward of additional depreciation 13. Perversity in Tribunal's conclusion Analysis: 1. The appeal raised questions regarding the interpretation of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, specifically whether additions can only be made based on evidence found in search for unabated assessments. The Court admitted this issue for consideration. 2. The appeal also questioned the reliance on specific case laws for assessment decisions. The Court admitted this issue for further examination. 3. Regarding the determination of profits under Section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act, the Court found no substantial issue arising as the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. 4. The tax treatment of Sales Tax subsidy and Industrial Promotion Assistance was a subject of dispute. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee based on a previous decision, not admitting this question for further review. 5. The treatment of subsidy receipt under Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act was also contested. The Court did not admit this question for consideration. 6. The issue of the Supreme Court decision's applicability on Assessing Officer and DRP powers was raised. The Court did not admit this question for further review. 7. The taxability of receipts from the sale of CER/Carbon Credits was challenged. The Court did not admit this question for consideration. 8. Disallowance of interest expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was disputed. The Court admitted this issue for further examination. 9. Disallowance of other expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act was also contested. The Court admitted this issue for consideration. 10. The taxability of retention money was raised, arguing against its non-taxability. The Court did not admit this question for review. 11. The treatment of capital receipt due to forfeiture of shares warrants was disputed. The Court did not admit this question for further examination. 12. The carry forward of additional depreciation was challenged. The Court admitted this issue for consideration. 13. The perversity in the Tribunal's conclusion was also raised. The Court did not admit this question for further review.
|
