TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 The worthy assessing officer has erred in bringing to tax excise duty refund of Rs. 1,67,23,019/00 which the assessee had neither received nor any right to receive had been created in favour of the assessee before the close of the previous year. Any item of revenue which entails uncertainty as to collection cannot be recognized as revenue of the previous year it relates to under the relevant accounting standard issued by the ICAI. 2.3 Even if the collection of Excise duty refund was not surrounded by the uncertainty as to its collection, the same is allowed to be netted against the excise duty paid under the relevant accounting standard issued by the ICAI, in which case the profits (Exempted) will shoot upto Rs. 2,17,91,876/74 with no tax liability of the assessee. In ITA No. 286/(Asr)/2016 "1. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty which was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. 2. On the facts and circumstances whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the penalty in view of CBDT circular no. 25/2015 when the said circular is based tax calculated on the normal income after giving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the outset, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the fact that there was a delay in filing of cross objections in CO No. 04/(Asr)/2015 and also invited our attention to application for condonation of delay and it was submitted that the cross objections could not be filed within time due to floods in Srinagar and it was prayed that the delay in filing of cross objections may be condoned. The Ld. DR had no objection in the condonation of delay in cross objections and, therefore, the delay was condoned. Explaining the facts of the case, the Ld. DR submitted that assessee had credited in its profit and loss account certain indirect incomes which the Assessing Officer had rightly excluded for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s 80IB and Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the same by setting off of such income against the business income. The Ld. DR, heavily placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 5. As regards of appeal in ITA No. 286/(Asr)/2016, the Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly allowed relief to the assessee on account of deletion of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, which the Assessing Officer had imposed correctly. 6. The Ld. AR, on the other hand submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perational income. The Ld. CIT (A) has discussed this issue at page 4 of his order wherein he has held that if other income of Rs. 3,55,40,053/- is not considered as derived from industrial undertaking, the industrial undertaking would incur a loss of Rs. 3,04,71,195/- and such loss has to be adjusted against the other income which was in the nature of interest income, insurance claim etc. We find that this finding of Ld. CIT(A) is correct and is in accordance with the law as section 71 of the Income Tax Act allows set off of loss from one head against income from another head. For the sake of convenience the provisions of section 71 are reproduced. "71. (1) Where in respect of any assessment year the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than "Capital gains", is a loss and the assessee has no income under the head "Capital gains", he shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income, if any, assessable for that assessment year under any other head". In view of the above provisions of section 71 we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground no. 1 of reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. ITA No. 1420, and furthermore, Ld. CIT(A) has relied on CBDT circular no. 25/2015 of 2014 wherein the Department has issued directions to the authorities directing them not to file appeal where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provision of the Act is less than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. For the sake of convenience the findings of the Hon'ble CIT(A) reproduced below: "This position has now been accepted and recognized by the CBDT in the cases prior to 01/04/2016 vide Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31/12/2015 (Copy enclosed) and the board has treated it a settled position that when the assessed tax under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under deeming provisions of 115JB or 115JC, then penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not attracted with reference to the additions or disallowances made under normal provisions. In the light of the above referred Circular of the Board, the penalty order made by the worthy Assessing Officer has been reduced to a nullity and accordingly is liable to be quashed." Determination: I have considered the facts of....