Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 346/2010
THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate with
Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Somnath Shukla
and Ms. Akansha Aggarwal,
Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
> ORDER 06.10.2010
Heard Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel along with Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.
In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "Act") the following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised:-
page 1 of 4.
- 1. Whether ITAT erred in deleting the amounts of Sales Tax subsidies calculated on sales made and received\nunder package scheme of incentive 1993 by holding them to be capital and not revenue receipts? - 2. Whether ITAT erred in allowing disallowances made for provisions for doubt full debts and on investments while calculating profits under Section 115JB by holding that the same were for diminution in the value of assets and hence not to be considered in terms of clause (c) of Explanation-I to Section 115JB? - 3. Whether the aforesaid order of ITAT is correct decision in view of amendment to Section 115JB of the Act whereof clause (i) has been inserted in Explanation-I to the said section and has been made retrospectively applicable with effect from 01.04.2001? - 4. Whether ITAT erred in allowing deduction under Section 80HHC while calculating MAT (Minimum Alternative Tax) under Section 115JB of the Act? - 5. Whether ITAT erred in deleting interest charged under Section 234D of the Act by holding that the same was inserted with effect from 01.06.2003 and would be applicable to assessment years 2003-04 even though Assessment was completed subsequently?
ITA 346/2010 page 2 of 4.
It is fairly stated at the bar that as far as question No.1 is concerned, it is basically a matter whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, "tribunal") has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.
It is not disputed that after remit, the Assessing Officer had proceeded and passed a fresh order against which the statutory appeal has been filed by the respondent-assessee.
In view of the aforesaid, the question No.1 does not survive.
As far as questions No.2 and 3 are concerned, the same are against the respondent-assessee in view of the amendment brought to under Section 115JA of the Act w.e.f. 01<sup>st</sup> April, 2001.
That apart, the controversy has been dealt with by this Court in CIT Vs. ILPEA Paramount Ltd. 192 Taxman 65 (Del.).
As far as question No.4 is concerned, it is not disputed at the bar that the controversy is covered by the decision rendered in CA No.7518/2010 Ajanta Pharma Vs. CIT on 09<sup>th</sup> September, 2010 in favor of the respondent-assessee.
As far as question No.5 is concerned, the same is covered by
page 3 of 4.
110.DHC-9922
the decision rendered on 30<sup>th</sup> August, 2010 in ITA 491/2008 (Director of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation Ltd.).
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the revenue is allowed in part and the order of the tribunal is accordingly modified. There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 06, 2010
page 4 of 4.