THE MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD,BANGALORE vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1149/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 August 2021AY 2007-085 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal, stating that the provision of Rs. 99,80,000/- made for the Chikodi Project was withdrawn in Financial Year 2013-14 (Assessment Year 2014-15), and the tax return for that year was accepted by the department. Consequently, the disallowance made in Assessment Year 2007-08 was negated. The assessee concluded that there was no amount payable by the company or demand outstanding. The learned DR did not object to this prayer. Based on these submissions, the Tribunal found the appeal to be infructuous and allowed it to be withdrawn. The operative direction was that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 27/3/2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-7, Bengaluru, for Assessment Year 2007-08. The dispute originated from a provision of Rs. 99,80,000/- made by the assessee for expenditure on procurement of ACSR conductors for the Chikodi Project, which was claimed as expenditure in its tax return. The PCIT, exercising powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, revised the original assessment order, holding the provision to be a contingent liability and not an allowable expenditure. The ITAT had previously remanded the matter to the PCIT, who confirmed the revision order. The assessee subsequently withdrew its appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provision of Rs. 99,80,000/- made by the assessee for procurement of ACSR conductors for the Chikodi Project, which was not actually incurred, constituted an allowable expenditure for Assessment Year 2007-08, as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee initially claimed the provision as expenditure. Later, it sought to withdraw the appeal before the ITAT, stating that the provision was withdrawn in Financial Year 2013-14 (Assessment Year 2014-15) and the return for that year was accepted by the department, negating the disallowance for Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, there was no amount payable or demand outstanding. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the CIT (DR), did not object to the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI. BR BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. K Soumya, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Date of Hearing : 12-08-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18-08-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Present appeal by the assessee has been filed by assessee against order dated 27/3/2017 passed by CIT-7, Benagaluru for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has filed a letter dated 17/8/2021 requesting for withdrawing the appeal, which reads as under:-

---- space left intentionally ----

4.

We heard Ld D.R, who did not object to the prayer of the assessee being withdrawn. Based on the submissions made by Ld.AR, the present appeal is allowed to be withdrawn as infructuous.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →