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.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Date of hearing: 11.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 23.11.2021 ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 29, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2002-03.
Assessee in that present appeal has raised the following grounds: “
1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not admitting the additional grounds filed by the appellant.
2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction of sales tax subsidy of Rs.18,08,41,056/- being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals ) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction of sales tax subsidy of Rs.7,16,61,919/- being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government read with Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958.
4. Without prejudice to Ground No. 2 & 3 , it is contended that sum of Rs. 18,08,41,056/- & Rs. 7,16,61,919/- being sales tax are an allowable deduction u/s 43B of the Income Tax act, 1961.
5. Ld. CIT(Appeals) is wrong on facts and'bad in law in not allowing the deduction of sales tax subsidy of Rs.18,08,41,056/- being a capital receipt granted under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Policy 1994 read with Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act ,1961.
6. Ld. CIT (Appeals) is wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the deduction of sales tax subsidy of Rs.7,16,61,919/- being a capital receipt granted under 1991 scheme of Madhya Pradesh Government readwith Madhya Pradesh General sales tax act 1958 while computing the Book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act ,1961.
7. The lower authorities are wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC to the extent of profits under clause (a) or clause( c) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC of Rs. 9,60,97,676/- while computing Book profits u/s 115JB based on the ratio of judgment by Hon’ble Supreme court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 305(SC).
The lower authorities are wrong on facts and bad in law in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC without applying the sun -set clause specified in sub - section (1B) of section 80HHC of the Act.
The Lower authorities are wrong on facts and bad in law in confirming of addition of Rs. 3,25,08,000/- on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts 10. The Lower authorities are wrong on facts and bad in law in confirming of addition of Rs.3,25,08,000/- on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts under the Book profit.
The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete, modify or vary the above grounds of appeal
at or before the time of the hearing.”
3. Before us, Learned AR at the outset fairly submitted that the Hon’ble CIT(A) on the grounds raised in the impugned appeal has observed that assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.02.2005 much before the search proceedings took place at assessee’s premises and nothing incriminating was found during the search to substantiate the additional claim with respect to the capital receipt of sale tax and other issues raised. CIT(A) therefore by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (61 Taxmann.com 412) held that the issues raised therefore cannot be considered. Before us, Learned AR fairly submitted that in view of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), the present appeal of assessee is not maintainable and the same be disposed off accordingly.
Learned DR on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by Learned AR.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the impugned appeal, assessee has raised various grounds with respect to the claim of taxability of subsidy and claim of deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The impugned assessment has been framed u/s 153A of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessment for A.Y. 2002-03 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act much before the search proceedings and nothing incriminating with respect to the claims now made was found during the course of search. In such a situation, we relying on the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) are of the view that the present grounds raised by the assessee are not maintainable. We therefore dismiss the grounds of appeal.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.