ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2923/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2015AY 2008-093 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 found that the AO had not examined the claim in light of Section 35D. Therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed bond issue expenses, of which the AO allowed 75% and disallowed 25%. The CIT, however, believed Section 35D was applicable and initiated revision proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order based on the applicability of Section 35D to bond issue expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35D,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Subachan Ram, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 15.09.2015Pronounced: 16.10.2015

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the validity of revision order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai for assessment year 2008-09. 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On examination of the assessment record, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed bond issue expenses to the tune of Rs.3.05 cores and the AO has allowed 75% of the same and disallowed 25% thereof. The ld. CIT(A) took the view that the provisions of section 35D of the Act is applicable to the expenses claimed by the assessee and accordingly, took the 2

view that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated the revision proceedings and set aside the assessment order with a direction to disallow the expenses as per the provisions of section 35 D of the Act.

3.

During the course of hearing, the ld AR strongly opposed the revision order.

4.

On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the AO has passed the assessment order without considering the provisions of section 35D of the Act and hence the incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati); and b) Booke Bond India Ltd V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC).

5.

Having heard the rival submissions, we find that the AO has not examined the claim of the assessee in terms of section 35D of the Act and hence incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Oct, 2015 (B. R. BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) रेखा सदस्म / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्मायमक सदस्म/JUDICIAL MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 16th Oct, 2015 व.यन.स./ SRL

आदेश की प्रनिलऱपि अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

5.

ITAT, Mumbai गाडड पाईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 35D

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →