9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts for the earlier assessment years specifically, AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were conducted by the department with the acceptance of the fact that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts for both the Units. It is noted that these separate books of accounts were submitted during the assessment proceedings and also before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) concerning the specified Unit II. Additionally, Form 10CCB, in conjunction with Rule 18BBB as per Section 80IA(7), along with a standalone balance sheet, was also submitted to the Assessing Officer (AO). Moreover, separate disallowances required as per income tax for the specified unit for the year ending March 31, 2017. The cost sheets, along with the standalone profit and loss statements submitted before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) demonstrate the bona fides of the assessee in maintaining separate books of accounts. Again, it is necessary to upload a consolidated balance sheet on the Income Tax portal; however, this requirement does not negate the fact that separate books of accounts were maintained, especially given that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents to substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rohit Kapoor, CA, Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Adv. V.S. Aggarwal, ITP For the Respondent : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, CIT-DR ORDER PER DR. MITHA LALMEENA, AM: Both the captioned appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee against the orders of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar [hereinafter referred to as the PCIT ] even dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) in respect of Assessment Years: 2017-18 2018-19 which are emanating from the assessment orders of the NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s Section 144B read with Section 144C(3) of the Act. 2. The Ld. AR of the appellant submitted a letter dated 04/09/2024 stating that while filing form 36, the appellant had inadvertently submitted incomplete grounds of appeal. The AR, however, further highlighted the grounds of appeal submitted physically before the registrar, were complete and correct. As such, the AR requested that the common grounds of appeal as submitted manually/physically should be taken into consideration for the purpose of the aforesaid appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are produced hereunder: 1. That the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 is illegal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings under section 263 are based on surmises and conjectures which renders the order passed under section 263 as bad in Law. 8. That That on facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred in invoking his revisionary powers on the basis of proposal submitted by the ward officer which was initiated at the instance of audit objection only. That the PCIT has failed to appreciate that the order has been passed by the A.O. by considering the submissions filed offline and online. That the PCIT has failed to appreciate that the audit objection was raised merely on the basis of online records and ignoring the submissions made offline. That the CIT has passed the order under section 263 ignoring clause (b) to explanation 1 of section 263, that record in assessment include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the PCIT. As such the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in law. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice u/s 263 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve (AR), vide letter dated 12.09.2024, has submitted a request for raising an additional ground of appeal wherein he contended that the provisions of Section 263 had been invoked merely based on audit objections. The AR relied on the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT , as reported in 229 ITR 383.The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the legal ground, and after considering the legal issue raised by the appellant and the cited judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT , the additional ground of appeal is hereby permitted. 6. Since, the appellant has raised common grounds and additional grounds in both the appeal and hence the facts are taken from ITA No. 324/Asr/2024 for discussion as a lead case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company with PAN AAACK1375K, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, as well as the production, collection, and distribution of steam and electricity (power). The appellant filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 on 16.11.2017, declaring NIL income after claiming a deduction under Section 80IA amounting to Rs. 44,56,27,360/-as per the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fer page 135 of the PB] 4. Reply of the appellant That the appellant submitted 8 replies on various dates addressing each and every query of the questionnaire dated 25.02.2019. [relevant reply to the above queries placed at page 135 of the PB] Reply to the questionnaires issued by TPO 18.11.2019 Detailed Submissions along with annexure vide reply dated 24.12.2019 13.10.2020 Reply Submitted on 24.10.2020 along with transfer pricing study 02.01.2021 Question: Appellant was asked to furnish: a) complete audit report of non eligible unit and eligible unit for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 b) Complete cost analysis of generation of power and steam of eligible unit II 100 TPH and comparison with non eligible unit 70TPH Reply of the appellant on 05.01.2021 along with relevant annexure [Page no 149-151A of the PB] along with complete books of accounts of eligible unit [Page No 122- 255 of the PB] 18.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 20.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 enclosed at page no 293A-356 of the PB 28.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 29.01.2021 enclosed at page no 359-372 of the PB Questionnaire issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dger accounts were also provided to the TPO. c) The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has accepted the cost sheet related to steam and power for Unit-2, as detailed in Annexure A, provided in the replies dated January 29, 2021, in response to SCN dated 28.01.2021 (refer to page no. 357-358, 359-372 of the Paper Book). The total cost determined for producing the power was calculated at Rs. 37,80,10,887 (refer to pages 120-132 of the Paper Book), compared to the total cost claimed of Rs. 89,78,75,526. d) The cost of steam constitutes 88.14% of the total power cost. Accordingly, the steam cost was calculated at Rs. 33,31,67,392/-. The sale price of the steam at Rs. 96,91,03,975/- has been accepted by the TPO (refer to page no. 130 and 132, relevant para 8.1 and 8.3). e) However, the TPO has recommended an adjustment for the price variation of Rs. 9,79,36,702/- related to the captive power consumption by the paper unit. This adjustment was suggested using the external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method, with an average price taken at 5.57, as opposed to the 6.44 considered by the assessee. (Relevant page no.132) ISSUE: ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT OF Rs. 9,79,36,703/- AS SUGG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly audited as per the provisions of the Act. The Audited Financial statements of the eligible unit alongwith the Form 10CCB filed are duly available on the departmental records (on the e-filing portal). Deduction under section 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 is allowable to the Assessee on the Profits derived from the Undertakings or the Enterprises of the Assessee from the businesses referred to in the Sub section (4) of Section 80IA on above mentioned grounds. 69- 73 Letter addressed to Joint Commissioner Income Tax (Audit) by the AO 09.02.2024 1. The AO partially accepted the audit objections raised by the audit party in respect of following issues: - a) Deduction claimed u/s 80IA needs proper verification. That the appellant has shown loss in no eligible unit and huge profit in the eligible business 2. Furthermore, in the concluding paragraph it has been pointed out by the AO that the audit objections can be settled by invoking the provisions of section 263. Please refer page no.78. 3. The AO highlighted to the joint commissioner audit that detailed enquiry was carried out by the AO in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80IA. It was also clarified that the eligible unit commenced its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... line system from where the correctness of facts stated by the assessee can be ascertained. In the online system, the National Faceless AO had no access to the earlier submissions made physically before the JAO/TPO, if any, made by the assessee. 5.3 The assessee had claimed that the exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iv) had been allowed from year to year in the past years and no variation on this account had been noticed in earlier years. It is observed that each assessment year is a separate year and if past history is to be the criterion, the case should not have been selected under CASS on this issue. In the year under consideration the assessee had incurred huge losses in the non-eligible unit and huge profits in the eligible unit, which mandated the AO to verify the expenses claimed and bifurcation of common expenses in these two category of units. The AO had not called for requisite enough details to examine these facts and passed the assessment order without making requisite inquires/examination of data on this issue, The issue in question in present proceedings is not the eligibility of deduction to eligible unit which is continuing from past years, but the examination of profitability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That the order passed under section 263 is without properly appreciating the facts evidence of the case is unjust and arbitrary. 10. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the order passed by the assessing officer is not in any case prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since, as against available deduction under Section 80IA of Rs 83,51,81,669, the Assessee has claimed deduction of Rs 44,56,27,360/-. That even if it is alleged that some of the expenses of the Non Specified units are attributed to the Specified Unit, the resultant loss of the Non Specified Unit get reduced and correspondingly deduction of the Specified unit will stand increased, which will be revenue neutral exercise and as such the order passed by the assessing officer cannot be said to the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. That the order passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the Ld. PCIT has passed the order under Section 263 without conducting any enquiry and had he conducted any enquiry, this fact would have been very clear that the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T has ignored the detailed verification made by A.O. and TPO while passing the order under section 263. The counsel stated that without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in branding assessment order, as erroneous/prejudicial on an issue which itself was covered by ambit of such assessment and that the AR submitted that the learned PCIT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the AO after examining the details, has adopted a possible opinion on the point raised in the notice issued by him and, therefore, the CIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 of the Act. Thus, he pleaded that the Order passed u/s 263 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 15. The AR further submitted that the Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice u/s 263 on 27.02.2024 seeking to revise the assessment order passed on 21.06.2021 with a view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and alleged that the AO had failed to carry out necessary inquiries and verification on the issue of verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible unit claiming deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of accounts, and the allegations made by the PCIT are based solely on surmises and conjectures. 18. The PCIT passed the order u/s 263 on the limited issue regarding verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible unit II 100 TPH claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) and non-eligible unit I 70 TPH and paper unit. The allegations of the PCIT are being summarized as under: - a) Failed to call for separate P L accounts for eligible and no eligible unit b) Failed to appreciate that the appellant had not provided annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. c) Failed to examine quantum of allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act d) Failed to appreciate that no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained e) Failed to appreciate that the documents submitted before the jurisdictional AO/ TPO were not uploaded for the perusal of NFAC authorities In support, the Ld. AR filed a written synopsis and a paper book comprising of 66 pages and 385 pages respectively which are placed on record for ready reference. The Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings under section 263 were initiated on the basis of the audit objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of steam and power. This order from the TPO was duly considered by the NFAC; thus, the allegations made by the PCIT are incorrect and lack a solid foundation. Furthermore, the AR drew the attention of bench to the questionnaire issued by the NFAC, which specifically addressed the deduction under Section 80IA. 22. Admittedly, the following were the sequence of event before the Ld. PCIT: Show cause notice u/s 263 27.02.2024 1.AO did not examine quantum of allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Further, no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained and the appellant failed to provide annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. 2. The AO did not examine appropriation of expenses amongst eligible and non eligible unit 3. Non submission of vouchers and statement of TDS deduction 4. No segregation in respect of depreciation allowed for paper unit and electricity unit 90-92 Reply in response to Show cause notice u/s 263 11.03.2024 ISSUE: Quantum of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) 1. It was explained that the appellant has constantly availed the benefit of 80IA from AY 2012-13 till AY 2021-22. It was further ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the expenses like Provision for Bonus, Provision for Gratuity, Provision for Leave encashment, CSR, Disallowance under rule 8D, Donation and Depreciation etc. correspond to the expenses/provisions which have been added back to income while computing the income under the head business and profession and do not relate to the deductions claimed by the assessee in the return of income. (Internal page no 16-17 of reply and relevant page no 108-109) ISSUE: NON SUBMISSION OF VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTION It was explained that complete bills and vouchers were produced and verified by the AO. Furthermore, all the expenses were also verified by the TPO. That the TDS returns were already available with the AO and the TDS on the expenses have duly been deducted. Hence, the allegation regarding the non deduction of TDS is incorrect. (Internal page no 1718 of reply and relevant page no 109-110) ISSUE: NO SEGREGATION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWED FOR PAPER UNIT AND ELECTRICITY UNIT The appellant has submitted separate balance sheet and profit loss account of power unit (eligible unit). Further, separate computation regarding depreciation amount eligible as per income tax along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units 112570925 units Steam 321791 MT 509463 MT 23.4 The AR further produced detailed working in respect of expenses claimed revenue generated qua units and their profitability ratio which is produced as follows: - TABLE B: Particulars Notation Expenditure in Power Unit-I [70 TPH] Expenditure in Power Unit-2 [100TPH] Total Coal A 525611819 771277964 1296889783 Chemical B 2975818 4366687 7342505 Water C 322518 460740 783258 Other Manufacturing Cost Manpower D 11328190 16183128 27511318 Consumables/repair Maintenance E 10769184 15802602 26571786 Depreciation F 11440521 22059387 33499908 Finance and Admin Cost Finance Cost @ 10.80 G 1037139 1521888 2559027 Admin Cost H 6852422 9789174 16641596 TOTAL COST I=A+B+ C+D+E+F+G+H 570337610 841461570 1411799180 SALE REVENUE J 1089623351 1694060731 2783684082 PROFIT K=J-I 519285741 852599161 1371884902 PERCENTAGE L=K/J*100 47.66% 50.33% 23.5 Without prejudice the above arguments the AR drew the attention of the bench towards the fact that even if the combined profit ratio is made applicable then also there is no prejudice to the revenue. The working was made taking into consideration the profit rate 49.22% Table C: Revised Profits after consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order is as under: - Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing Officer's order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is absent, i.e., if order of Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to revenue, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) - Held, yes -Whether if due to an erroneous order of ITO, revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to interests of revenue - Held, yes - Assessee-company entered into agreement for sale of estate of rubber plantation - As purchaser could not pay installments as scheduled in agreement, extension of time for payment of installments was given on condition of vendee paying damages for loss of agricultural income and assessee passed resolution to that effect - Assessee showed this receipt as agricultural income - Resolution passed by assessee was not placed before Assessing Officer - Assessing Officer accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee and accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - a) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 514 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Dairy Development Board* b) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal Commissioner of Incometax v. Britannia Industries Ltd.* c) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. S N Tradelink (P.) Ltd.* d) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 139 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shukla Dairy (P.) Ltd.* e) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 408 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. ShivshahiPunarvasanPrakalp Ltd.* f) [2023] 148 taxmann.com 314 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. K. Foundation* g) [2020] 119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Chemsworth (P.) Ltd.* h) [2020] 119 taxmann.com 318 (Karnataka) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Aztec Software Technology Ltd.* i) [2023] 156 taxmann.com 369 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' Comtrade Commodities Services Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax j) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 811 (Kolkata - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ledger account submitted before TPO at page no.169-187 3) Ledger account submitted before CIT at page no.169-187 Chemical Consumption Actual Ledger enclosed at page no 160 to 167 Water Actual Reply dated 05.01.2021 submitted to TPO enclosed at page no.255 Manpower Actual Reply dated 05.01.2021 submitted to TPO enclosed at page no.243 Consumables Allocation on monthly basis Ledger enclosed at page no 188 Depreciation Actual Based on company act in books of accounts and income tax act in computation. 1) Ledger account submitted at page no.189-190 2) Depreciation chart as per income tax of eligible unit please refer page 7 3) Audited profit and loss account Please refer page 5-6. Finance cost Other method Compared the interest rate with effective cost of borrowings 1) Part of TPO report and benchmarking is done based on cost of borrowing. Please refer page no 376 and part of TPO order refer Page no 120 2) ledger enclosed at page no 199 Administration cost Other method Allocated based on employee cost. 1) Part of TPO report and benchmarking is done on basis of cost of borrowing. Please refer page no 376 and part of TPO order refer Page no 120 2) ledger enclosed at page no 158 28.1 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR has argued that the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed after detailed enquiry and examination of books of account. The AR submitted a summary of notices issued from time to time and the reply furnished in response to the notices issued. The same is being reproduced as under; - Sr. No Notice issued under section Date of Notice Date of submission of documents of physical verification Authority before which submissions made 1 143(2) 09-08-2018 20-08-2018 DCIT, Central Circle 2 142(1) 25-02-2019 02-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 3 142(1) 25-02-2019 04-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 4 142(1) 25-02-2019 20-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 5 142(1) 25-02-2019 25-05-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 6 142(1) 25-02-2019 03-06-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 7 142(1) 25-02-2019 03-06-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 8 142(1) 25-02-2019 25-07-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 9 129 30-09-2019 03-10-2019 Circle-5, Amritsar 10 142(1) 05-02-2019 11-02-2019 DCIT, Central Circle 11 142(1) 03-04-2021 05-04-2021 NFAC 12 92CA 13-10-20 24-10-2020 TPO 13 92CA 18-11-2019 24-11-2019 TPO 14 92CA 02-01-2021 05-01-2021 TPO 15 92CA 18-01-2021 20-01-2021 TPO 16 92CA 18-01-2021 22-01-2021 TPO 17 92CA 28-01-2021 29-01-2021 TPO 29.1 Again, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Furnish complete Financial, Audit Report and Computation of Income of Power generating Unit-I (Non-Eligible Unit during the FY 2016-17) and Unit-II an eligible unit during the FY 2016-17. In response to the query raised by the TPO, the assessee filed a response vide letter dated 05-012021 in which it is clearly mentioned that most of the information requisitioned in the notice is already requested when the assessee appeared before the TPO for physical hearing held on 02-01-2021 and which was submitted in hard copy vide letter dated 04-01-2021. Further, the response to the query raised is reproduced as under: Audited Financial statements of the power generating units for the FY 2016-17 along with the cost sheet and mechanism of calculation of the selling price of steam and power have also been submitted with the submissions dated 04-01-2021. We may also wish to state that during the transfer pricing proceedings for the AY 2013-14, the sale rate for steam was accepted at 2011.05/MT, whereas the steam rate for the AY 2016-17 is 1902.2/MT. There is no change in the computation mechanism as compared to the AY 2013-14. Copy of the letter dated 3008-2015 filed before the Ld. TPO is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercised. Further the appellant placed reliance upon the following case laws: - a) [2023] 146 taxmann.com 281 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cartier Leaflin (P.) Ltd. b) 2017] 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIT v. NiravModi* c) Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd v Commissioner of Income tax 110 taxmann.com 170 (Allahabad)/[2019] 267 Taxman 18 d) CIT v Hindustan Marketing Advertising Co. Ltd.196 Taxman 368 e) Copy of judgment of ITAT, Amritsar Bench SMT. ANITA MALPOTRA V.INCOME-TAX OFFICER 109 TTJ 76 f) Loil Continental Foods Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2019 Chd- Trib. g) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 194 taxman 504 29.4 From the record, it is evident that all relevant documents were submitted before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) and thus the contention raised by the Ld. AR is correct. Furthermore, based on the questionnaires issued by the AO over time and the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) places at pages 120-132, it is clear that a proper inquiry was conducted by the AO. Consequently, the jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 263 can be invoked only if it is preceded by some enquiry by the PCIT. The AR argued that the condition to hold an assessment order being erroneous could be proved only if the PCIT undertakes certain enquiry which has not been done in present case. 30.1 The AR submitted a list of documents furnished before the PCIT/AO to prove that the allegation of the PCIT is unfounded and without any application of mind. Particulars Remarks Copy of notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 25.02.2019 along with the reply 133-39(I) Questionnaire issued by Faceless Assessment Centre dated 03.04.2021 and reply dated 05.04.2021 specifically enquiring the deduction claimed u/s 80IA 140-47A Copy of the letter dated 24.12.2019 filed before the Ld. TPO 256-56A copy of the Form 10CCB, Audited Balance sheet and P L account of the eligible unit 1-7 Complete set of books of accounts of the eligible unit 157-255 Complete cost analysis for non-eligible Unit I and eligible Unit II 150-51A Copy of cost sheet of allocation of cost in Power and steam unit 150-51A copy of the adjustments made for the depreciation to arrive at the profits of the eligible unit for deduction u/s 80IA 7 Reply mentioning the fact regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VERSUS CIT-1, RAIPUR m) 2019 (12) TMI 253 - ITAT MUMBAIM/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED VERSUS PR. CIT-5 n) 2018 (2) TMI 2025 - ITAT MUMBAISHRI SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL I MUMBAI o) SANJAY JAIN V. PCIT ITA NO. 140/CHD/2021 p) 2024 (8) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD POSUN CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LIMITED VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA-1, VADODARA. 30.4 The Authorized Representative (AR) has submitted all relevant documents before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which were also provided to the Assessing Officer (AO), and no specific defects were pointed out by the PCIT to contest these submissions. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 by PCIT is hereby quashed, as the deficiencies in the AO's inquiry have not been adequately highlighted. The PCIT was obligated to conduct at least a minimal inquiry himself, which is notably absent in this case. 30.5 In this case of *Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd.*, reported in 162 taxmann.com 273.the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the department, affirming that the Commissioner under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied by the Ld. AR: - a) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi - Trib.) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A' AhlconParenterals (India) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax* MAY 21, 2024 b) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 574 (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'C' Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax c) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 686 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH A' Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central (1)* d) [2022] 145 taxmann.com 590 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. ReetaLakhmani* e) [2022] 141 taxmann.com 269 (Rajkot - Trib.) IN THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH Gujarat State Lion Conservation Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) f) 2018 (9) TMI 294 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI CITY-1 MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. LTD. g) 2022 (8) TMI 1218 - ITAT MUMBAI SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATASANTHA MARYADIT VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MAHARASHTRA h) SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2016 (6) TMI 793 - ITAT AMRITSAR Other Citation: [2016] 48 ITR (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
