9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. This was after having made enquiry during the Assessment Proceedings and the Petitioner justifying its claim for deduction of ₹ 1.98 Crores to the Assessing Officer as is evident from its letter dated 24th July, 1998. Thus, this is a clear case of change of opinion and the Assessing Officer could not have any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped Assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. Ms. A. Vissanji with Mr.S. J. Mehta, for the Petitioner. P.C: None appears for the Respondents in spite of the fact that Advocate for the Respondents had waived service at the time of admission of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 143(3) of the Act, determining the Petitioner's income at ₹ 50.27 Crores. This, after allowing deduction of ₹ 1.98 Crores as claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal with regard to the issues (other than the claim for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act) from the order dated 27th March, 1998, to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In Appeal, the total income was reduced from ₹ 50.26 Crores to ₹ 4.06 Crores by the CIT(A), after allowing deduction of ₹ 1.98 Crores under Section 80M of the Act. By an order dated 31st March, 1999, effect was given to the order of the CIT(A). 7. Thereafter, on 21st July, 2000, the impugned notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by it for A.Y. 199495, the eligible deduction as per the assesssee works out as under: i) On dividend received from UTI (@ 40% of gross dividend income) Rs.89,02,400/- 100% dividend received from other domestic companies Rs.98,00,723/ ₹ 1,87,03,123/ ========= However, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction at ₹ 1,98,05,010/. He did not discuss anything in the order regarding the eligible deduction while allowing deduction u/s. 80M. Thus, prima facie, the A.O. allowed excess deduction of ₹ 11,01,887/. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93,10,687/- ₹ 3,04,53,887/- ========= Eligible Deduction u/s.80M (i) On net dividend received from UTI @ 40% of net dividend) Rs.84,57,280/ (ii) Net dividend from other domestic companies Rs.93,10,687/ Rs.1,77,67,967/ ========= In view of the above, it may be said that the Assessing Officer allowed excess deduction of ₹ 20,37,043/u/ s. 80M in the assessment order. The assessee went in appeal before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 9. The reasons in support of the impugned notice suggests that the Petitioner had claimed excess deduction under Section 80M of the Act to the extent of ₹ 11.1 lakhs. This is factually incorrect as borne out by the statement annexed to the Petitioner's return of income wherein the claim of ₹ 1.98 Crores under Chapter VIA of the Act consisted of ₹ 11.1 lakhs under Section 80G of the Act and ₹ 1.80 Crores under Section 80M of the Act. The other basis is that the Petitioner had failed to reduce the cost (expenditure) incurred in earning the dividend income to the extent of 5% of the gross dividend income. This is a factual matter which was a subject matter of consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
