TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by four days and one day for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals by stating that the delay was neither willful not wanton and pleaded for condoning the delay, against which, the Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, the delays in filing the appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. When the appeal for the assessment year 2002-03 was taken up for hearing, the Ld. DR has submitted that the present appeal before the Tribunal relates to giving effect order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as resulted in the assessing authority giving deductions for depreciation allowance twice, one computed under the Companies Act and the other computed under the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax also found that while computing the benefit of section 10B, the assessing authority has not split depreciation allowance into two, to exclude one portion and on that ground also the order of the assessing authority has become erroneous. 3.3 In view of the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed a revision order under section 263 of the Act, directing the Assessing Officer to make appropriate adjustments in respect of depreciation and re-compute the taxable income after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order has no basis. (e) The Assessing Authority erred in proceeding pursuant to an invalid order in so far as the order u/s. 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax has been passed in contravention of the ingredients of Sec. 263. The present impugned order dated 15.12.2011 refers to a proposal initiated by the Assessing Authority based on which the Commissioner revises the order of reassessment dated 3.7.2008. Sec. 263 provides for a revision of an order of assessment if the CIT is of the opinion that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the instant case in so far as the opinion has been formed by the Assessing Authority and not the Commissioner of Income Tax, jurisdiction u/s. 263 is vit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterests of the Revenue. The order passed by the assessing authority to give effect to the orders of the Tribunal is "any order" passed by an assessing authority, who is subordinate to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Therefore the Commissioner of Income-tax invoked the powers under section 263 within the permissible limits of Jaw. He has not exceeded jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) Further on merit also, the ITAT observed: "7. Regarding the merits, it is quite evident that the assessing authority has adopted the net profit for further giving deduction by way of depreciation, which was already modified by the depreciation allowance as provided under the Companies Act. Therefore, the excess amount of depreciation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 2003-04, the only issue for consideration before us is relating to confirmation of addition of Rs. 55,03,123/- being interest paid to Global Trust Bank. 7.1. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company M/s. Penta Media Graphics Ltd. decided to provide ESOP to its employees and for which purpose, the assessee has created M/s. Pentafour Software Employees Foundation (PSEF). M/s. PSEF obtained loan from Global Trust Bank and the amount received were deposited as share application deposit for the purpose of utilizing the said deposited amount towards allotment of shares to its employees from time to time. The employees did not opt for allotment of shares and consequently, the employees were not provided with ESOP. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. PSEF and not by the assessee and therefore, it is not for the purpose of business of the assessee and it cannot be allowed. 10. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including case law relied upon. In this case, the assessee has created M/s. Pentafour Software Employees Foundation (PSEF) for the purpose of allotment of shares to the employees and M/s. PSEF obtained loan from the Global Trust Bank and the same was deposited with the assessee as share application deposits for the purpose of utilizing the said deposit amount for allotment of shares to the employees from time to time. However, the assessee has not allotted any shares to the employees. Th....