SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,(CPC) BANGALORE (JAO DDCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1056/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 October 2024AY 2021-22Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for taxation under Section 115BAA. The clarification regarding donations to the PM CARES Fund indicates that such donations do not disqualify an assessee from opting for the concessional taxation regime.

What were the facts?

The assessee opted for the taxation scheme under Section 115BAA but the CPC denied this scheme during the processing of the return under Section 143(1). The CIT(A) confirmed this action, citing the assessee's claim of deduction under Section 80G for donations to the PM CARES Fund.

What were the issues?

Whether claiming deduction under Section 80G for donations to PM CARES Fund disqualifies an assessee from opting for the concessional tax regime under Section 115BAA. Whether the action of the AO and CIT(A) in denying the Section 115BAA regime was beyond the jurisdiction of Section 143(1) processing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BAA,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT DR
Pronounced: 14.10.2024

(Assessment Year: 2021-22) Schaeffler India Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ABB, Opp. Maneja Income Tax, (CPC) Vadodara-390013 Bangalore (JAO Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara) [PAN No.AAACF3357Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT DR 14.10.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2024 O R D E R

PER DR. BRR KUMAR - ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Addl./JCIT(A), Prayagraj, vide order dated 29.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2021-22.

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“Invalid Jurisdiction u/s 143(1): 1. The learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Prayagraj ["CIT(A)"] erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the learned Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru ("the AO") in recomputing the tax liability while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in withdrawing the taxation scheme opted u/s 115B AA of the Act while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act.

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in withdrawing the taxation scheme opted by the Appellant in the return of income despite the fact that it is outside purview of section 143(1) of the Act and therefore beyond jurisdiction of the learned AO.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming an invalid order passed by the learned AO. Denial of taxation regime opted u/s 115BAA: 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing tax liability at the rate of 30% instead of 22% u/s 115BAA of the Act and thereby determining tax demand of Rs. 61,77,90,540. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing tax liability on returned income under normal provisions of the Act despite the fact that the Appellant had opted for tax regime u/s 115BAA of the Act in accordance with the manner prescribed u/s 115BAA(5) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the tax regime opted by the Appellant u/s 115BAA of the Act for the year under consideration without appreciating the fact that all conditions prescribed under sub-section 2 of section 115BAA were satisfied during the year under consideration. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in rejecting the tax computation u/s 115BAA of the Act despite the fact that no deduction under Chapter VI-A was claimed during the year. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in rejecting tax computation u/s 115BAA of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has claimed deduction u/s 80G for AY 2020-21 in respect of donation made to PM Cares fund in accordance with Press Release dated 31.03.2020. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing tax liability under normal provisions without appreciating the facts on record in proper perspective. 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO without granting proper opportunity of being heard.

Schaeffler India Ltd. vs. ACIT (JAO DCIT) Asst.Year –2021-22 - 3– Other Grounds 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the learned AO in not appreciating the fact that MAT provisions u/s 115JB does not apply as the Appellant has opted for new tax regime u/s 115B AA of the Act.

13.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in not granting TDS credit of Rs 60,772.

14.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in not granting TCS credit of Rs 1,29,479.

15.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act.

16.

The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in levying interest u/s 234C of the Act.

17.

Your Appellant craves the right to add to or to alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

.”

3. The assesse claimed deduction under Section 80G of the Act as the amount of contribution made to Prime Minister Care Fund during the Financial Year 2020-21. The CPC denied the taxation regime under Section 115BBA which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(E).

4.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assesse brought to our notice the taxation and other laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, wherein the issue relates to contribution to Prime Minister Care Fund reads as under:

“4. A special fund “Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES FUND)” has been set up for providing relief to the persons affected from the outbreak of Corona virus. The Ordinance also amended the provisions of Income-tax Act to provide the same tax treatment to PM CARES Fund as available to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, the donation made to the PM CARES Fund shall be eligible for 100% deduction under section 80G of the IT Act. Further, the limit of deduction of 10% of gross income shall also not be applicable for donation made to PM CARES Fund.

As the date for claiming deduction u/s 80G under IT Act has been extended up to 30.06.2020, the donation made up to 30.06.2020 shall also be eligible for deduction from income of FY 2019-20. Hence, any person including corporate paying concessional tax on income of FY 2020-21 under new regime can make donation to PM CARES Fund up to 30.06.2020 and can claim deduction u/s 80G against income of FY 2019-20 and shall also not lose his eligibility to pay tax in concessional taxation regime for income of FY 2020-21.”

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. objected on the grounds that as per Section 115BBA of the Act the assesse is not eligible for the new regime.

6.

We have gone through the matter and the clarification issued by Ministry of Finance and find that the Assessee is eligible for taxation under Section 115BBA of the Act.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.10.2024

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14/10/2024 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 115BAA

All 225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →