Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Deduction under section 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) recomputation not permissible via rectification; Revenue appeal dismissed and addition deleted</h1> Whether recomputation of deductions under sections 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) could be corrected by rectification was contested; the tribunal found ... Rectification u/s 154 - Addition made on re-computation of allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) - Whether deduction available to assessee u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) has to be reduced from profits derived from business providing long-term finance computed under head 'profit and gains or business or profession' for the purpose of computing deduction available u/s 36(1)(viii) - whether issue is debatable and beyond the scope of section 154? HELD THAT:- We find that on the issue of deduction u/s 36(1) (viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) of the Act, the Revenue has placed reliance on the decision of Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 912 - ITAT DELHI] whereas the CIT(A) has followed Delhi ITAT in the case of Tourism Finance Corpn. Of India Ltd [2010 (1) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI] We are therefore of the considered view that the calculation of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) of the Act is an issue which is highly debatable and therefore the same cannot be categorized as a mistake apparent from record. We, therefore, hold that the calculation for disallowance of the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) of the Act, can not be resorted under the provision of section 154 of the Act. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the addition made on re-computation of allowable deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer was entitled to recompute and reduce the deductions claimed under section 36(1)(viia)(c) and section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by exercise of rectification under section 154 on the ground of a purported mistake apparent from the record.Analysis: The dispute involves the proper sequence and computation of deductions under sections 36(1)(viia)(c) and 36(1)(viii) and whether the AO's re-computation constitutes a rectification of a mistake apparent from record under section 154. The Tribunal examined competing decisions of coordinate benches and found the question to be debatable - differing precedents exist on the computation and sequencing of these deductions. Where the legal position is arguable and depends on contested interpretation of provisions and precedent, the defect cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on the face of the record permitting summary rectification under section 154.Conclusion: The recomputation and consequent addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 154 is not sustainable because the issue is highly debatable and does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record; the AO is directed to delete the addition. Decision is in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
