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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (3) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of donation of Rs. 53,000/- without considering the documentary evidences placed on record. Thus the addition must be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of bonus of Rs. 69,745/- paid after filing the return but before the due date of return of income for the relevant period. Thus the addition must be deleted. 3. Thus, without prejudice to the ground taken above, if the bonus paid Rs. 69,745/- is not allowed during the relevant year then must be allowed in the next assessment year. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, since the facts are already available on record. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) * DCIT Vs Turquoise Investment & Finance Ltd. (2006) 154 Taxman 80 (MP) * Kanoi Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2006) 100 ITD 462 (Kol.) * West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs Dy. CIT (2005) 278 ITR 218 (Cal) * Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (JD) TM 124 * Datamatics Ltd.Vs Asstt. CIT (2007) 111 TTJ (Mum-Trib.) 55 * Abhishek Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 655 (P&H) * Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (1999) 238 ITR 268 (Del) * Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs Arunodya (2006) 286 ITR 383 (Del) * Satish Kumar Keshari Vs ITO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of the item. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee." 7. At the first instant, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued the additional grounds and submitted that ....