For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

assessee's claim of foreseeable loss of Rs. 67.53 lacs. The Assessing Officer having rejected the entire claim, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief and allowed the loss of Rs. 34.83 lacs. The Tribunal in further appeals of both the sides placed the issue back before the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore, allowed in part. The remand by the Tribunal of the issue under consideration is reversed. The appeal of the assessee is placed back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this limited issue. We have expressed no opinion on merits. The Tribunal may decide the question independently. The Income Tax Appeal is disposed of

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 32, 36 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, appeal is filed by revenue against order of ITAT on the following grounds—

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in restoring the matter back to the file of the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee has neither claimed the foreseeable loss of 34,83,000/- in the return of income nor filed any revised return claiming the said loss?

Held that—Issue covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of ASSOCIATED CABLES P. LIMITED. [2006] [BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

deletion of addition in respect of retention money without appreciating the fact that the assessee has neither claimed retention money of 77.21 lakh in the return of income nor filed any revised return—Held that—Referring to main objection of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that the assessee had raised such a claim without the same being part of the return filed and without the assessee having filed a revised return. The Tribunal in this context, refereed to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders P Ltd reported in [2012] [BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court had taken a view that the Appellate Authorities have power to consider the claim even though not made in the return. This question, therefore, is not required to be entertained.

Claim of additional depreciation—Held that— CIT (Appeals) had rejected the assessee's claim on the ground that the same did not pertain to the year under consideration. If that be so, the Tribunal should have given its opinion whether the CIT (Appeals) was correct in coming to such a conclusion. Mere remand to CIT (Appeals) for fresh consideration would be futile. In so far as this question is concerned, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal may be requested to decide the ground of the assessee in his appeal. [THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 8 VERSUS M/S. TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.] [2018] [7] [ITCD Online] [53] [BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

assessee's claim of foreseeable loss of Rs. 67.53 lacs. The Assessing Officer having rejected the entire claim, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief and allowed the loss of Rs. 34.83 lacs. The Tribunal in further appeals of both the sides placed the issue back before the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The appeal filed by the Revenue is therefore, allowed in part. The remand by the Tribunal of the issue under consideration is reversed. The appeal of the assessee is placed back before the Tribunal for fresh consideration on this limited issue. We have expressed no opinion on merits. The Tribunal may decide the question independently. The Income Tax Appeal is disposed of

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 32, 36 of Income Tax Act, 1961—In the instant case, appeal is filed by revenue against order of ITAT on the following grounds—

Held that—Issue covered against the Revenue by virtue of the judgment of this Court in the case of ASSOCIATED CABLES P. LIMITED. [2006] [BOMBAY HIGH COURT]