TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Assessing Officer ('AO') was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That invocation of provisions of section 263 of the Act is illegal & bad in law as the conditions embedded in section 263 were not complied with. 3. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in invoking clause (a) of explanation 2 of section 263(1) of as the explanation does not authorize unfettered powers to the CIT to revise each and every order passed by the AO. 4. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law as well as in facts while passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the act. That the PCIT has failed to appreciate that the AO has taken a plausible view by not including the subsidies in the book profit as the same does not partake the character of income as per various clauses mentioned in section 2(24) of the income Tax Act, 1961. That the PCIT has erred in appreciating the fact that once the receipt is not included in income, the same shall also not form part of book profit. 5. That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1('Ld. CIT') u/s 263 is arbitrary, unjust, is based on assumptions & presumptions since no prejudice was caused to revenue. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO has made proper enquiry, and it was not the case where no enquiry has been made and that the Pr.CIT, Jalandhar-1 has grossly erred in setting aside the assessment framed with the directions to pass fresh order after considering all aspects of the matter and after carrying out proper enquiries. Thus, the Ld. AR argued that the Pr. CIT has failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. Regarding the issue of deduction of Rs. 4,40,52,629/- the appellant in reply dated 27.11.2018, stated that the amount of Rs. 4,40,54,329/- constituted capital receipts, and thus, these aforesaid amounts are beyond the purview of income chargeable to tax. The Ld. AR submitted the breakdown of deduction of Rs. 4,40,52,629/- which is reproduced hereunder: - Particulars Amount Explanation offered by the appellant Self-credit of excise duty 26725474 That the amount of Rs. 26725474/- has been included in the profit and loss account under the head 'other income'. Please refer page no 28 of the PB. That the mentioned amount constitutes a capital receipt and, therefore, cannot be categorized as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d fact has been verified by the assessing officer. The said basic exercise has not been done by the Pr.CIT. In this regard the AR further placed reliance upon the following judgments: - A) Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT - ITA No.3097/Del/2014 - order dated 1 July 2019. B) 2017 (9) TMI 529 - DELHI HIGH COURT PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, NEW DELHI VERSUS DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. C) 2013 (7) TMI 483 - DELHI HIGH COURT Other Citation: [2013] 357 ITR 388 DIT VERSUS JYOTI FOUNDATION D) 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT Other Citation: [2012] 343 ITR 329 INCOME TAX OFFICER VERSUS DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD E) 2019 (4) TMI 1044 - DELHI HIGH COURT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VERSUS KOHINOOR FOODS LIMITED F) 2017 (9) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 VERSUS MODICARE LIMITED G) 2017 (4) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 VERSUS LAKSHYA SETH H) 2022 (8) TMI 510 - ITAT CUTTACKASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA VERSUS PR. CIT, BHUBANESWAR I) 2022 (3) TMI 1282 - ITAT DELHIEVON TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD 1 (3) DEHRADUN J) 2021 (10) TMI 273 - ITAT RAIPURM/S R.R. ISPAT LIMITED VERSUS CIT-1, RAIPUR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO has failed to work out correct book profit u/s 115JB by allowing deduction u/s 80IB in computation of book profit u/s 155JB. 3.5 The facts of the case are that the assessee has a unit claimed as exempt u/s 801B at Samba in Jammu & Kashmir. Further, it has a unit at Jalandhar which is not exempt u/s 801B. As per Section 115 JB of the Act, an assessee is liable to pay tax at the rates of 18-1/2 per cent on the book profit if the income tax payable on the total income is less than 18-1/2 per cent of its Book Profit. The said Section also provides for computing the book profit starting with the profits as per Profit & LOSS account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part-ll of Schedule VI of Companies Act 1956. the said Section also provides for allowing certain deductions. However, deduction u/s 80 IB is not one of them. Hence the assessee was required to compute the Book Profit u/s 115 JB without claiming deduction in respect of the profits of 80 IB unit. On perusal of the records it is revealed that assessee has arrived at the book profit after claiming deduction u/s 80 1B which is incorrect. The Assessing Officer has passed the order without examining the same. Furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pr.CIT has not given any adverse view in the lieu of documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order of the AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 12. In the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Kanin (India)*TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA AND PANKAJ JAIN, JJ.IT APPEAL NOS. 205 AND 213 OF 2019 (O&M) †APRIL 21, 2022 141 taxmann.com 83; the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the similar facts of the assessee's case, has observed that the CIT has failed to undertake any enquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordships observed that it was incumbent upon the Pr.CIT to undertake an enquiry as regards to the issues. The matter can be restored to the AO only after the Pr.CIT undertakes the enquiry himself. 13. From the facts on record and the aforesaid cases relied upon by the counsel of the assessee, it appropriate to observe, in the present case, that the necessary enquiries were being made by the AO. It is pertinent to mention that the view of ld. Assessing Officer being a plausible view, and therefore, the....