KAMRUP COKE INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order was already set aside by a previous ITAT order and issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Therefore, the current issue regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure and its eligibility for Section 80IC deduction was also remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer rectified an assessment order under Section 154 to include a previously disallowed amount of Rs. 29,52,785/-. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this rectification, stating the amount was disallowed interest expenditure and thus ineligible for Section 80IC deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer could rectify an assessment order under Section 154 to include a disallowed amount, and if such disallowed interest expenditure is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata dated 25.09.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Kamrup Coke Industries 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and upholding the order of ld. Assessing Officer passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
Brief facts of the case are that an assessment order under section 143(3) was completed on 24.02.2016. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated proceeding under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that in paragraph no. 3 & 3.1 of the assessment order an amount of Rs.29,52,785/- was disallowed, however, it remained to be included in the computation of income. Accordingly he took action under section 154 of the Income Tax Ac and included that amount of Rs.29,52,785/-.
The assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 24.02.2016. He thereafter challenged the order of the ld. Assessing Officer passed under section 154 read with 143(3) of 2nd June, 2016 before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee had contended that the issue is highly debatable and, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer ought to have not made this addition in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that sum of Rs.29,52,785/- represents disallowance of interest expenditure and, therefore, this amount
Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Kamrup Coke Industries is not eligible for claiming deduction us/ 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Before us, the assessee has submitted that the assessee has challenged the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act before ld. CIT(Appeals) and thereafter before the ITAT vide ITA No. 2593/KOL/2019. After hearing the assessee, the Tribunal has set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restored all these issues to the ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Since the determination of income of the assessee remained to be adjudicated by the ld. Assessing Officer afresh after the order of the Tribunal dated 13.09.2022 passed in we deem it appropriate to relegate this issue also for fresh adjudication at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, whether disallowance of interest expenditure would qualify for grant of deduction under section 80IC is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026