9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o claim deduction u/s.80IB in respect of the unit at Pondicherrys even though the assessee had not complied with the mandatory provision for filing the Audit Report in Form 10CCB in support of the claim as stipulated in Section 80IB(13) r/w.Sec.80IA(7) of the Act, by observing that it was enough if the Audit Report was filed before the assessment was completed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made u/s.68 by the Assessing Officer being unexplained share application money credited in the assessee's books of account even though the assessing officer had established by thorough investigation that the companies existed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B is mandatory, it is well settled by a number of judicial precedents that before the assessment is completed, the declaration could be filed. In fact, the said issue came to be decided by the Karnataka High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. ACE MULTITAXES SYSTEMS (P) LTD. (2009) 317 ITR 207(Karnataka), wherein it was held that when a relief is sought for under Section 80IB of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view of the Delhi High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial question of law (2) is concerned, it relates to the deletion of addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act by the assessing officer as unexplained share application money, and the issue has been covered by the judgement of the Madras High Court in the case in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. GOBI TEXTILES LIMITED (2007) 294 ITR 663 (MAD) holding against the Revenue. 11. In such view of the matter, the substantial question of law (2) also does not merit consideration. 12. In fact, to arrive at such conclusion, the Madras High Court has relied on the judgement of the Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. STELLAR INVESTMENT LTD.(1991) 192 ITR 287, which judgement has been confirmed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
