M/S. MAWANA SUGARS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1244/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 2024AY 2004-05Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)3 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 held that since the claim for long-term capital loss squarely pertained to Assessment Year 2001-02, it should be considered in that specific year. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the disallowance of this claim in the Assessment Year 2004-05 under consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mawana Sugars Ltd., appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the rejection of a long-term capital loss of Rs. 132.48 crores arising from the transfer of land to the Delhi Development Authority. This loss was initially claimed and disallowed in A.Y. 2001-02, and then claimed again in A.Y. 2004-05 as an abundant precaution.

What were the issues?

Whether a long-term capital loss pertaining to an earlier assessment year (A.Y. 2001-02) can be claimed in a subsequent assessment year (A.Y. 2004-05) as an abundant precaution after its disallowance in the original year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22.01.2024Pronounced: 31.01.2024

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), LTU New Delhi dated 26.12.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2004-05.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the claim of rejection of long term capital loss of Rs. 132,48,60,804/- on transfer of land to Delhi Development Authority.

3.

Facts on record show that the assessee claimed this loss by way of revised return in which it stated that this loss on surrender of land to DDA was claimed in A.Y 2001-02 wherein the claim has been disallowed and without prejudice to the claim in A.Y 2001-02, claim is made in A.Y 2004-05 as an abundant precaution.

4.

The assessee explained the underlying facts which gave rise to the claim of loss. Since the claim of loss pertains to A.Y 2001-02, the same shall be considered in that A.Y and, therefore we do not find any fault in disallowing the claim in the year under consideration.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2024.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →