9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act) dated 25.12.2021 was Rs. 1,40,08,91,368/- and after adjustment of refund of Rs. 7,85,80,700/- for AY 2021-22 leaving the outstanding balance at Rs. 132,23,10,668/-. 2. The brief facts about the rectification petitions filed by the assessee and the status thereof was submitted as under:- Brief facts as rectification filed at various stages Intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 25.12.2021 The Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for AY 2020-21 was received by assessee on 25.12.2021 after making an addition of Rs. 4,80,80,77,340/-. The intimation u/s 143(1) and the detailed note and breakup of such amount is attached at Annexure-II and III. Rectification w.r.t. CPC' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Intimation and other mistakes on 06.08.2024, however, the ld. AO/NaFAC has not taken any cognizance of disposing off such application. The final assessment order for the AY 2020-21 was received by the appellant on 24.07.2024 after making an addition of & 6,51,98,14,662/- including the adjustments of & 4,80,80,77,340/- made by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act. The copy of final order is attached at Annexure-VI. The Appellant aggrieved with the said assessment order also filed an appeal (quantum) before the Hon'ble ITAT on 20.09.2024 vide ITA No. 4328/Del/2024 wherein the above issues has been disputed before the Hon'ble ITAT. Application for stay of demand before Id. AO: The appellant has filed an application for stay of demand date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y making adjustment on account of various items aggregating to Rs. 46,65,22,558/-and also disallowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act of Rs. 434,15,54,788/-. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the appeal of the Appellant against the intimation dated 25.12.2021 and directing the AO/CPC to cancel the tax liability wrongly raised against the Appellant by making adjustments which were not legally and factually warranted. 4. That the CITA) erred in not entertaining the appeal of the Appellant against the intimation dated 25.12.2021 and directing the AO/CPC to delete the adjustment wrongly made in respect of deduction claimed by the Company of Rs. 434,15,54,788/- u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act in respect of power plants of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciating that amount of Rs. 17,22,66,659/- being loss on sale of fixed assets included in the above figure had already been added back/disallowed in computation of income and balance amount of Rs. 6,85,505/- being loss suffered on account of foreign exchange fluctuation was duly allowable to the company. 8. That the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the appeal of the Appellant against the intimation dated 25.12.2021 and directing the AO/CPC to restrict the adjustment on account of bonus payable to only Rs. 16,33,226/- instead of Rs. 5,40,85,615/- since the Company had already made addition in computation of taxable income of Rs. 5,24,52,389/-. He also ought to have directed to AO/CPC to further allow deduction on account of bonus actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of tax paid in Singapore for which the required details had been duly submitted by the Company and in the intimation also, it was clearly shown that relief is allowing to the company vide Annexure FSI. 12. That the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the appeal of the Appellant against the intimation dated 25.12.2021 and directing the Assessing Officer/CPC to allow MAT credit as is duly allowable to the Company against the tax liability determined vide the aforesaid intimation." 3. Further, the assessee submitted that as the mistakes in the order dated 25.12.2021 u/s 143(1) of the Act were apparent from the record and therefore the assessee filed rectification petition dated 05.09.2023 before the Assessing Officer, which the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the returned income amounting to Rs. 301,48,60,400/- filed by the assessee in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 24.07.2024 for AY 2020-21. On verification, the same has been found to be correct. Thus, it is seen that the demand has been raised once again in respect of the same addition/disallowance made in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 25.12.2021 in the case of the assessee for AY 2020-21 vide assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 24.07.2024 which amounts to taxing the same income twice. In respect of the said order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal being ITA No.4328/Del/2024, which is fixed for hearing before the 'I' Bench on 12.03.2025. In this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
