|
II. Useful Case Laws:
1. CIT vs Madhushree Gupta, ITA No. 47/2013, Judgment delivered on: 27.02.2013, High court of Delhi
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) shall not be imposed if assessee has set off loss against the amount of profit after claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the said Act.
In view of Supreme Court judgment in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. DCIT : [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 80AB had an overriding effect over all the other sections in Chapter VI-A including Section 80HHC. The decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd (supra) came subsequent to the filing of the return. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim made by the respondent /assessee was not bona fide or without any basis. The present case is not covered by the ratio laid down in Zoom Communication Private Limited: 327 ITR 510 (Del). The Tribunal has arrived at the correct decision relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited: 322 ITR 158 (SC).
(Please click here for judgment)
2. JCIT Vs. M/s. Pilani Investment & Industries Corpn. Ltd, ITA No. 653/ Kol ./2012, Date of pronouncing the order : 04.02.2013, ITAT - Kolkata
Expense specifically relatable to taxable income cannot be disallowed u/s 14A & Rule 8D.
Once it is found that an expense is specifically relatable to a taxable income, no portion of such an expense can be disallowed u/s 14A. The allocation of general expenses vis-à-vis tax exempt income and taxable income can only be made in respect of expenditure which cannot either be wholly allocated to taxable income, then or which cannot be wholly allocated to tax exempt income; the allocation can be made, even on the basis of formula set out in Rule 6D (iii) (should be Rule 8D (2)(iii)), in respect of such expenses which do not fall within any of these categories.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now