Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions, validates Assessee's deduction claims under tax laws.</h1> <h3>DCIT Circle – 23 (2), New Delhi Versus M/s. SIL Investment Ltd., (Formerly known as Sutlej Industries Ltd.)</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Assessee's deduction claims under sections 80IA/80IB ... Disallowance of claim u/s 80IA/80IB - assessee should have adjusted the losses of other units with the profits of the two units - submission of the assessee that losses of the other units were not actual losses and have already been adjusted in the earlier year and therefore do not call for adjustment in the year under consideration, was not found acceptable to AO - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee has given a finding that during the relevant period, profits was derived from only 2 units and the computation of deduction u/s 80IA/IB has made as per the provisions of section 80IA(5). Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A), thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. Denial of claim u/s 80M - AO was of the view that since no distribution of dividend was made by the assessee, it was not eligible for deduction u/s 80M - HELD THAT:- We find that CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given a finding that out of the total amount of ₹ 5.09 crore (rounded off) was received by the assessee by way of dividend and ₹ 3.97 crore (rounded off) was distributed as dividend to its share holders by the assessee. To support the contention of the distribution of the dividend, assessee had also filed a certificate to the CA for the relevant period. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed by the Revenue - no interference of the CIT(A) is called for and thus the ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of claim under section 80IA/80IB of Rs. 4,32,65,7252. Disallowance of claim under section 80M of Rs. 3,97,34,475Issue 1: Disallowance of claim under section 80IA/80IB of Rs. 4,32,65,725The case involved the denial of a deduction claim under section 80IA/80IB of Rs. 4,32,65,725 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Assessee, a company with multiple units, claimed the deduction for two units as per Section 80IA(5) of the Act. However, the AO insisted on adjusting losses from other units against profits from these two units, leading to the disallowance. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) ruled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing that the computation was in line with the Act's provisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the profits were derived from only two units during the relevant period, and no errors were found in the CIT(A)'s findings. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance of claim under section 80M of Rs. 3,97,34,475The second issue revolved around the denial of a deduction claim under section 80M of Rs. 3,97,34,475 by the AO due to the Assessee's failure to distribute dividends. The CIT(A) favored the Assessee, highlighting that the Assessee had received dividends and distributed a portion to its shareholders, supported by relevant documentation. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and records, found no fault in the CIT(A)'s decision. As the Revenue failed to point out any errors in the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal upheld the decision, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The detailed analysis of each issue highlighted the proper application of the law and factual considerations, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's grounds. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation and application of relevant tax provisions, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the disputes raised in the appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found