9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of a sum as revenue income. 2. Allowance of investment allowance carry forward. 3. Addition to income regarding closing stock valuation. Analysis: Issue 1: Assessment of a sum as revenue income The appeal challenges the assessment of a sum as revenue income by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on a subsidy received by the assessee-company. The AO considered the subsidy as revenue receipt, citing legal precedents. The assessee argued that the subsidy was a capital receipt and referred to a Tribunal judgment in a similar case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) disagreed, stating that the subsidy was a benefit arising from the business and should be assessed as business income under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, held that the subsidy was a capital receipt, following previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s interpretation and directed the deletion of the sum from the total income of the assessee. Issue 2: Allowance of investment allowance carry forward The appeal challenges the disallowance of investment allowance carry forward by the AO, based on the creation of a reserve. The AO relied on a Supreme Court judgment and held that the reserve must be created in specific years for the claim to be allowable. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The assessee argued that a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) allowed for the consideration of reserves created in the current year for the claim. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, directing the AO to allow the investment allowance claimed based on the reserve created during the current year, subject to other conditions. Issue 3: Addition to income regarding closing stock valuation The appeal contests an addition made by the AO to the income of the assessee concerning the valuation of closing stock. The CIT(A) directed the withdrawal of the adjustment made by the AO based on a previous year's assessment. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) gave directions without allowing an opportunity to explain the stock valuation issue. The Tribunal found that the assessment was made before considering previous appellate orders and directed a reevaluation of the closing stock valuation, allowing the assessee a chance to present their case. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on all three issues, directing the deletion of the disputed sum from the total income, permitting the investment allowance carry forward, and remanding the closing stock valuation issue for reconsideration.
|
