9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remitted the matter back to AO - order of CIT remanding back the issue to AO sustained - Decided against assessee. Revision u/s 263 - The contention of the assessee was that CIT has not dealt with any issue that was subject matter of adjudication and exceeded his jurisdiction – Held that:- Section 263 authorises a Commissioner of Income-tax to revise any order passed by any subordinate authority, which is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The order passed by the assessing authority to give effect to the orders of the Tribunal is “any order” passed by an assessing authority, who is subordinate to the Commissioner of Income-tax - In that way the Commissioner of Income-tax has not exceeded his jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessing authority giving deductions for depreciation allowance twice, one computed under the Companies Act and the other computed under the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax also found that while computing the benefit of section 10B, the assessing authority has not split depreciation allowance into two, to exclude one portion and on that ground also the order of the assessing authority has become erroneous. 4. In view of the above, the Commissioner of Incometax passed a revision order under section 263 of the Act, directing the Assessing Officer to make appropriate adjustments in respect of depreciation and re-compute the taxable income after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. 5. It is aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessing authority is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 8. In these circumstances, the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment year 2002-03 is in accordance with law and his order is upheld. The assessee fails in its appeal for the assessment year 2002-03. 9. As far as the assessment year 2003-04 is concerned, the first ground raised by the assessee is regarding limitation. It is the case of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee that the period of limitation applicable to this case is to be computed from the date of the first assessment order passed under section 143(3) and if so, the revision order has been passed beyond time. The learned senior coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue on which the Commissioner of Income tax has revised the order for the assessment year 2003-04, is the interest paid by the assessee on the loan taken by the employees of the assessee for allotment of ESOP shares to them. The employees of the assessee company at the first instance opted for ESOP and availed bank loans for the purpose of acquiring the shares. Later on, the employees declined to subscribe to the ESOP and, therefore, the loan had to be repaid along with interest. The assessee claimed the interest as an expenditure deductible in computing its taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax held that the loan was not availed for the purpose of business of the assessee and, therefore, such interest could not be allowed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
