“application of income”

RELIANCE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUBMAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Reliance Industrial Principal Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Limited, Tax – 3, 5Th Floor, Nkm International House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 178 Backbay Reclamation Marine Maharshi Karve Road, Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaacr7637P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Reduction in profit because of application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards. 2. Large refund claimed out of advance tax (Business ITR). 3. Deductees have claimed tax deduction against salary by a TAN in their ITRs

THE BOMBAY HINDU BURNING AND BURIAL GROUNDS COMMITTEE,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXE WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

appeal on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee fulfilled all the condition to avail the benefit of application of income under section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 3 The Bombay Hindu Burning and Burial Grounds Committee 3. On the other hand ... inadvertence selected inappropriate provision in showing the status of assessee and mentioned Section 10(23C) instead of 12AA. The CPC not allowed the application of income under section 11/12, thereby disallowing all the expenses. It is matter of record that assessee filed application under section 154. The application of assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Foundation. According to the Assessing Officer, Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure incurred under section 135 of the Companies Act lacked voluntary character and represented application of income. It was held that allowing deduction under section 80G would defeat the intent of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly ... Explanation 2 to section 37(1), read with the CBDT Circular No. 01/2015 dated 21.01.2015, makes it clear that CSR expenditure is an application of income and cannot be allowed as deduction, and that permitting deduction under section 80G would indirectly defeat that legislative intent. He also referred to Schedule

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Explanation 2 to section 37(1), read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 01/2015 dated 21.01.2015, makes it clear that CSR\nexpenditure is an application of income and cannot be allowed as\ndeduction, and that permitting deduction under section 80G\nwould indirectly defeat that legislative intent. He also referred to\nSchedule ... incurred for the purposes of business\nor profession and that the explanatory notes to the Finance Act\nalso characterize such expenditure as application of income. On\nthat basis, the learned CIT(A) concluded that allowing deduction\nunder section 80G would indirectly defeat the legislative intent\nunderlying the statutory disallowance

ACIT CC 4 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAERSK LINE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

same is incurred wholly and\nexclusively for the purposes of carrying on business or profession. As the\nCSR expenditure (being an application of income) is not incurred for the\npurposes of carrying on business, such expenditure cannot be allowed under\nthe existing provisions of section 37 of the Income