TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the order u/s 154 of the Act passed by AO. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the decision of the AO in not allowing the deduction of the profit on sale of fixed asset amounting to Rs. 11,97,269 under the normal provision of the Act. The said gain ought to have been reduced from the computation of profits from business being a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. The said mistake being rectifiable as mistake apparent on record was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing the return of income, the assessee had claimed a set off of brought forward loss of AY 2010-11, for which it had filed an appeal with regard to the disallowance made as per the order passed u/s 143(3); in the said order for AY 2010-11, the then AO had disallowed software expenses amounting to Rs. 19,25,978/- on which he had allowed depreciation @ 30% as the asset was put to use on or after 30.09.2009; while completing the assessment for AY 2011-12 u/s 143(3), the AO ought to have allowed depreciation @ 60% on the WDV of Rs. 13,50,985/-; however, no such depreciation was given while framing the assessment order for the relevant assessment year. However, the AO rejected the application u/s 154 filed by the assessee on the reason that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the profit on sale of show-room amounting to Rs. 11,97,269/- remained to be reduced while computing the profits u/s 115JB; however, the AO without deliberating on the issue passed the order without considering the submission made vide letter dated 04.09.2013. Further, it is stated that for AY 2010-11, the assessee had incurred software expenses amounting to Rs. 19,25,978/- which was claimed as revenue; the then AO while passing order u/s 143(3) treated the said software expenses as capital expenses and allowed depreciation thereon at Rs. 5,78,993/- being 30% of software expenses as was purchased after 01.09.2009. It is stated that letters were filed on 11.06.2014 and 01.08.2017 asking the AO to rectify the above mistake and also to grant d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50 (SC), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions; a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. In the instant case, the mistake as pointed out by the Ld. counsel is not apparent on the record; not obvious and patent mistake. In the instant case, the mistakes can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In the instant case, the mistakes pointed out by the Ld counsel are rather debatable. Thus the ratio laid down by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achinery, that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It ....