CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd.

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

…during the course of assessment/appellate proceedings and on consideration of which the AO should have granted the correct deduction after due verification. a) CIT v. Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (P&H); b) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222; c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai); d) MIT Mohan Singh Kahlon [2013] 39 taxmann.com 145 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (P. no. 896-901 of Case Law Compilation); e) Mrs. Meena S. Banerji vs. ITO [2007] 14 SOT 569 (Mumbai-Trib(P. no. 902- 910 of Case Law Compilation) and f) Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd…

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

…during the course of assessment/appellate proceedings and on consideration of which the AO should have granted the correct deduction after due verification. a) CIT v. Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (P&H); b) CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222; c) Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mumbai); d) MIT Mohan Singh Kahlon [2013] 39 taxmann.com 145 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (P. no. 896-901 of Case Law Compilation); e) Mrs. Meena S. Banerji vs. ITO [2007] 14 SOT 569 (Mumbai-Trib(P. no. 902- 910 of Case Law Compilation) and f) Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd…

Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Add. CIT, Range-22, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

…king clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal." 9. In CIT Vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 reliance placed on Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) by the Revenue was rejected, as the assessee had not made any „new claim‟ but had asked for re-computation of deduction under Section 80-IB. The said decision may not be squarely applicable but the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not the technical view as what is required to be determined is t…

JCIT, Circle-22(1), New Delhi vs. Sara International Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

…king clear that the decision was limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal." 9. In CIT Vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 reliance placed on Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) by the Revenue was rejected, as the assessee had not made any „new claim‟ but had asked for re-computation of deduction under Section 80-IB. The said decision may not be squarely applicable but the Courts have taken a pragmatic view and not the technical view as what is required to be determined is t…

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

…ed to the copy of the aforesaid orders which are placed in the paper book. Before us, Learned AR also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ramco International 221 CTR 491 (P & H), CIT vs. Natraj Stationery Products (P.) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222 and other decisions which are cited in the synopsis. 49. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities. 50. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the additional claim of deduction made u/s 80IA of the Act. It is an undisputed f…

ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…permitting the assessed to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. ITA 261/2002 Page 5 of 6 The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also." 9. This High Court in CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222, had observed that Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) would not apply if the assessee had not made a 'new claim' but had asked for re- computation of deduction. Reference can also be made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi), wherein a Division Bench of this Court rejected the…

Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…permitting the assessed to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. ITA 261/2002 Page 5 of 6 The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also." 9. This High Court in CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 312 ITR 222, had observed that Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) would not apply if the assessee had not made a 'new claim' but had asked for re- computation of deduction. Reference can also be made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 100 (Delhi), wherein a Division Bench of this Court rejected the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…uction for AY 1999-00 under Section 80-IA despite the fact that the investment in P&M in the previous year was Rs. 6.75 crores which exceeded the prescribed limit. Relying on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 22 (Del) and Praveen Soni v. CIT (2011) 241 CTR 542 (Del), it is submitted that the correct interpretation of Section 80-IA(12)(f) was to examine if, on the last date of the previous year relating to the concerned AY in which the claim under Section 80-IA was being made, the investment by the Assessee in the P&M was within the prescribed limit…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…uction for AY 1999-00 under Section 80-IA despite the fact that the investment in P&M in the previous year was Rs. 6.75 crores which exceeded the prescribed limit. Relying on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 22 (Del) and Praveen Soni v. CIT (2011) 241 CTR 542 (Del), it is submitted that the correct interpretation of Section 80-IA(12)(f) was to examine if, on the last date of the previous year relating to the concerned AY in which the claim under Section 80-IA was being made, the investment by the Assessee in the P&M was within the prescribed limit…