9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1411 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IC - HELD THAT - As could be seen from the above computation of total income the deduction u/s 80IC is nil. Therefore the issue is purely academic and accordingly the substantial questions of law (a) to (e) are left open as it does not arise for consideration in the case on hand. Additional depreciation it is not in dispute that the said issues squarely covered by the decision of Ramkrishna Forging Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 1312 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein the Court took into consideration the decision of Brakes India Ltd. 2012 (3) TMI 31 - ITAT CHENNAI which was followed in the case of Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. 2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT Questions of law (f) and (g) are answered against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Transfer Pricing Proceedings for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 3. Violation of Rule 10B & 10C of Income Tax Rule, 1962. 4. Arm's Length Price Determination. 5. Claim of Deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 6. Claim for Additional Depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia). 7. Application of Principle of Consistency. Analysis: 1. The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation and application of various provisions of the Act. 2. The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in relying on past orders under Section 143(3) for certain assessment years and not referring the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The Court analyzed the facts and circumstances to determine the correctness of the Tribunal's decision. 3. Another issue involved the alleged violation of Rule 10B & 10C of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 by the Tribunal in not conducting adequate comparability analysis and reliable adjustments, leading to the deletion of adjustments made by the TPO. The Court assessed the legal and factual aspects of this issue. 4. The Court also examined whether the Tribunal erred in deleting certain adjustments without considering the significant difference in operating profitability between eligible and non-eligible units of the assessee for determining the Arm's Length Price, a crucial aspect in transfer pricing cases. 5. Regarding the claim of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, the Court found the issue to be academic as the deduction was nil in the assessment order. The Court discussed the computation of total income and clarified that the substantial questions related to this deduction were not applicable in the case. 6. The Court addressed the issue of the claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) and referred to relevant case law to support its decision. The Court ruled against the revenue, citing precedents and established legal principles in similar cases. 7. Lastly, the Court disposed of the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law related to the additional depreciation against the revenue. The judgment highlighted the application of the principle of consistency and the relevance of past decisions in similar matters. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning and outcomes of the High Court's decision on various issues raised in the appeal.
|
