Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in AYs 2006-07 2007-08 filed by the assessee are allowed. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR For the Revenue : Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR ORDER PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 23/02/2024 28/02/2024 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ]. Since the issues invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s income was already exempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 5. The assessee is aggrieved by the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) and has raised multiple grounds challenging these additions and procedural lapses in the appellate orders. Following are the grounds of appeals: ITA No. 813/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2006-07 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts by dismissing the ground No- 2 3 of Appeal related to allowing Prior Period Expenses of Rs. 3,78,49,201 in spite of quoting following facts in his order: It is seen that the order u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 has been passed on 14/03/2014, subsequently Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 08.06.2018 confirmed the stand of Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s 11 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e amounting to Rs. 2,35,00,000/- into Pension / superannuation fund u/s 36(i)(iv) of the Act and Rs. 8,97,00,000/- to Gratuity Fund u/s 36(i)(v) in spite of decision of Hon'ble ITAT to assess the income of Appellant u/s 11-13 of the Act at Rs. NIL from AY 2004-05 to 2008-09. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs. 9,66,66,667/- in respect of upfront premium being the income of Appellant is exempted u/s 11-13 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has not provided link of Virtual Hearing as requested from your appellant from time to time which has been confirmed by Income Tax Department vide DIN / Letter No: ITBA/NFAC/S/17/2023-24/1058958521(1) dated 21. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t taxed entirely in the year of receipt. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Unique Mercantile Services Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat HC) reported at (2015) 56 taxmann.com 429. The AR pointed out that the CIT(A) failed to provide a link for virtual hearings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The AR submitted that since the assessee s income is exempt, the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act, as well as the initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was unsustainable. 7. The learned DR fairly conceded that the issue of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee s own case for earlier years. 8. We have carefully considered the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s excessive. The assessee has submitted actuarial valuation reports from LIC justifying the contributions. Legal precedents, including CIT v. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals (supra) , support that contributions backed by actuarial valuations cannot be disallowed. Moreover, as the entire income of the assessee is exempt under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, the disallowance is not tenable. Accordingly, the disallowances are deleted. 8.4. In the A.Y. 2007-08, the AO added the upfront lease premium of Rs. 9,66,66,667/- to the taxable income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The lease premium pertains to a 30-year lease and should be spread over the lease period. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Unique Mercantile Service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates