Daily Archives: March 28, 2013

CIT v M/s Chelslind Textiles Ltd (ITA No: 361/2009 dtd 04/03/2009) – Karnataka HC Background: Assessee claimed deduction u/s 10B amounting to Rs.4,75,30,724/- on the business income of Rs.5,36,70,676. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax observed that the AO allowed the deduction without setting-off unabsorbed depreciation amount of Rs.4,26,23,711. Therefore, the CIT in his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act was of the view that the same resulted in excess deduction allowed under Section 10B of the Act and incorrect determination of loss was carried forward. Therefore, he set-aside the said order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the total income after setting-off the unabsorbed depreciation. Further,the question arose as to whether an assessee incurring losses in the 10A unit has an option to opt out of the benefit under section 10A(8) and make inter-source and inter-head set-off u/s 72.

An assessee can opt out of 10A/10B exemption in the year of loss – Karnataka ...

Sunil Sachdeva v ACIT (IT APPEAL NO. 4179 (DELHI) OF 2011) Delhi ITAT Background: During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee sold shares of M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,62,87,500/-. Assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,22,23,250/- u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee has invested Rs. 1,22,23,250/- on 31.7.2008 in the special gain account maintained with the Syndicate Bank. The CIT(A) made an enhancement by holding that assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F(1) on the payment of Rs. 55,70,800/-. This has been denied on the ground that the payment was made by M/s Capital Advertising Pvt. Ltd. wherein the assessee was Director and not by the assessee himself.

Reimbursement of cost of property entitled to 54F deduction – Delhi ITAT