ITA No. 5678/Del/2012 and C.O. No. 481/Del/2012 (In ITA No. 5678/Del/2012), (Assessment Year: 2004-05). Case: 1. ACIT, 2. M/s. Keane India Ltd. Vs 1. M/s. Keane India Ltd., 2. ACIT. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | ITA No. 5678/Del/2012 and C.O. No. 481/Del/2012 (In ITA No. 5678/Del/2012), (Assessment Year: 2004-05) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR and For Respondents: Shri S.D. Kapila & Charu Kapoor, Adv. |
| Judges | R.P. Tolani, Member (J) and Shamim Yahya, Member (A) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 10A, 115JB, 143(3), 147, 148, 154 |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2013 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
R.P. Tolani, Member (J), (ITAT Delhi 'D' Bench)
1. This is Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross objections against CIT(A)'s order dated 2-8-2012 relating to A.Y. 2004-05. Respective grounds raised are as under:
Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 5678/Del/2012):
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction u/s. 10A aggregating to Rs. 12,28,14,579/- from the profits of the business before setting off unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 3,38,00,740/- and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,62,91,752/- relatable to non-eligible units.
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the adjustment made in arriving book profit u/s. 115JB of the IT Act on account of income of which u/s. 10A is applicable at Rs. 5,96,73,066/- after setting off of business allows and unabsorbed depreciation.
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing excess depreciation of Rs. 1,49,36,923/- claimed on account of revising the estimated life of assets, while computing the book profits of the assessee u/s. 115JB of the IT act despite the fact that Explanation (iia) of the said section specifically excludes the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets.
4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidence without any verification at any level, the provision for gratuity and leave encashment as ascertained liability for the purpose of section 115JB only on the basis of revised actual valuation certificate dated 11/06/2004.
Assessee's cross-objections:
That on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice u/s. 148 issued by the Assessing officer was within jurisdiction and therefore the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that the issue about validity of reopening of assessment is covered in assessee's favour by ITAT's order, which is further confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court's judgment for immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2003-04 on the same issue.
2. For A.Y. 2003-04 the assessee challenged 148 proceedings on the same reasons as in A.Y. 2004-05 before CIT(A) who allowed the appeal holding that reopening of assessment was bad in law. Aggrieved, Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order before the ITAT, which after considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 20-5-2011 in ITA No. 3291/Del/2010, confirmed CIT(A)'s order as under.
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. As the facts emerge, AO while framing original assessment dated 27-3-2006 has considered the issue in detail of...
To continue reading
Request your trial