TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds IT Tribunal order on expense apportionment between plants</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus MONO STEEL (INDIA) LTD</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus MONO STEEL (INDIA) LTD - TMI Issues:Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding apportionment of expenses under section 80I(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the apportionment of expenses between Power Plant and Sponge Iron Plant for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer observed an understatement of expenses in the Power Plant, leading to a reduction in the eligible deduction under section 80I(4) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who relied on the assessee's case for the assessment year 2008-09.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessee's case for 2008-09 noted that the assessee maintained separate accounts for both plants and identified all direct expenses. Various factors were considered, such as the nature of the plants, financial structure, maintenance costs, and fuel usage. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer not to reduce a specific amount from the eligible profit due to allocation of expenditure. The Tribunal, after re-evaluating the evidence, agreed with the Commissioner's findings.3. The Senior Advocate for the appellant reiterated the grounds of appeal and the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. However, the High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was based on concurrent findings of fact after assessing the material on record. Since no perversity was identified in the Tribunal's order, the High Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for consideration. As a result, the appeal was dismissed summarily.
TaxTMI 