TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l expenses. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 55,776/- on account of alleged late payments made in respect of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund treating the same as income u/s.2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,37,699/- by re computing the deduction u/s.80IB of the I.T. Act at Rs. 1,26,86,992/- eliminating the profit from Windmill business and disallowing the expenses thereof as against that of Rs. 1,35,24,691/- claimed by the appellant in the return of income filed. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction u/s.80IB(5) of the Act in respect of Windmill business. He ought to have allowed the deduction of profit of wind mill at 100% of 20,52,724/- u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the I.T.Act,1961. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of Sec.80IB on the ground that a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d capital which was in the scrutiny assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act for immediately preceding A.Y. 2008-09 was not disallowed. However, with all his fairness, the Learned AR submitted that similar disallowance made by the Learned AO for A.Y. 2009-10 and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) was appealed by the assessee before the Learned ITAT which is still pending. He, ultimately prayed for deletion of such addition. On the contrary, the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears, admittedly this expenditure pertain to filing and stamping charges of ROC for increase in the authorized capital is nothing but a capital expenditure. This proposition has been upheld by catena of judgments as already relied upon by the Learned AO. Further that, in the judgment of CIT-vs-Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. 207 ITR 553 (1994) categorically held that fees paid for increasing authorized capital is a capital expenditure. Thus, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s 35D of the Act. Further that, the judgment passed in the matter of Punjab ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to deduction of such amount though he deposits the said sum before the due date prescribe u/s 43B i.e. prior to filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since in this particular case, the employees' contribution toward PF was not deposited before due date in terms of statutory rules as mentioned hereinabove, the Learned CIT(A) confirmed such addition of Rs. 55,776/- without any ambiguity, hence the same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3, 4 & 5 are interconnected : 9. The assessee has challenged the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act to the tune of Rs. 8,37,699/-. 10. It appears from the return of income that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,35,24,691/- as deduction u/s 80IB. This is the seventh year of scrutiny claim of deduction u/s 80IB. The amount so claimed has been worked out at 30% of the income from business and profession as per the computation of income of Rs. 4,50,82,300/-. It appears that the assessee has included the profit derived from a windmill unit located at Kutch. The Learned AO reduced the sale profit from the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that it was not a part of the profit of manufacturing unit elig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of M/s. Goetze India Ltd. reported in 157 taxman 1 (SC) by observing that the assessee was not entitled to additional deduction since it has not filed a revised return of income. Against the said order the assessee went up in appeal but without any result. Hence, the instant appeal. 12. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Learned AR submitted before us that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the entitlement of deduction of assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. Further that the right of the assessee cannot be denied merely on the technical ground that the assessee has not claimed deduction in respect of its windmill unit u/s 80IA(4) neither filed a revised return within the stipulated time. More so, the same issue in assessee's own case came up before the Learned ITAT in an appeal preferred by Revenue where the Co-ordinate Bench was pleased to reject the same. On the contrary the Learned DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below. 13. Heard the respective parties and perused the relevant materials on records. The issue is covered by the Judgment passed by the Learned Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10. The appeal being ITA No.1602/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the correct and legitimate amount as per the provisions of section 80IB of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has merely disallowed the claim for not filing revised return of income. It is an established proposition of law that the correct income of the assessee has to be assessed by the Assessing Officer and if there is a rightful claim then the same should be allowed to the assessee. More particularly in this case of assessee claimed a deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in the return of income so there is no new claim made during the course of assessment proceedings but it is just a correct claim which has been put forward with due supporting before ld. Assessing Officer and the same should have been allowed to the assessee. 22.1 We observe that ld. CIT(A) has allowed assessee's claim of additional deduction of Rs. 11,22,920/- in a right perspective by observing as follows :- 10.3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is seen that in the original return the appellant has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB of Rs. 54,36,002/-. This deduction was revised to Rs. 65,58,922/- during the assessment proceedings. The appellant has filed the report of Chartered Accountant as re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12. 14. The assessee has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) mainly in not adjudicating the ground of appeal as raised by the appellant challenging the action of the Assessing officer in computing the total income at Rs. 4,19,85,472/- taking the figure as per original return of income ignoring the revised return of income filed by the appellant declaring the income of Rs. 3,69,65,780/- holding the same as general in nature. 15. It appears from the assessment order that the assessee has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 through electronic media on 28.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 3,80,52,880/-. However, the assessee thereafter filed a revised return on 28.02.2013 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,69,65,780/-. Thus, it is evident that the revised return so filed by the appellant was within the prescribed period of one year from the date of completion of A.Y. 2011-12 i.e. by 31.03.2013. The assessment proceeding regarding A.Y. 2011-12 was also not completed by the time when the revised return was filed by the appellant on 28.02.2013. Hence, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment proceeding....