Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1870 2014 SLD 1870 (2014) 369 ITR 717
Bombay High Court
IT Appeal Nos. 3418 of 2010, 1777 of 2011, 452, 909 & 271 of2012 and 450, 762 & 1556 of 2013, DECEMBER 5, 2014
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MENON, JJ
Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv., Arvind Pinto, Ms. Padma Divakar, Tejveer Singh, Suresh Kumar, A.R. Malhotra and N.A. Kazi for the Appellant. Soli Dastur, Senior Advocate, Niraj Seth, J.D. Mistri, R. Murlidhar and A.K. Jasani for the
Respondent

Commissioner of IncomE tax-8, Mumbaiv.Sulzer India Ltd

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - These Appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the I.T. Act") challenge the order dated 7th September, 2012 (in ITXA/450/2013) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench at Mumbai. The Tribunal dealt with two Appeals, one by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(III), Mumbai being Income Tax Appeal No. 2871/Mum/2007 and another by the Assessee being Income Tax Appeal No. 2944/Mum/2007. The assessment year is 2003-04. These were cross Appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (XIX) dated 19-01-2007. 2. Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Appeals raise substantial questions of law and as formulated at page 8 of the paper book (ITXA/450/2013). In all fairness to him, he has also invited our attention to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1777 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No.2016 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No. 358 of 2012 and Income Tax Appeal No. 271 of 2012, wherein, according to him, similar question has been admitted. He submits that therefore, the Appeals be admitted. 3. Since Mr. Gupta has referred to the facts in Income Tax Appeal No. 450 of 2013, we would prefer to state them in brief. 4. The Assessee M/s. Sulzer India Ltd. filed return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 27th November, 2013 declaring total income at Rs.10,59,76,986/-, claiming deduction under section 80HHC of the I.T. Act in the sum of Rs.82,48,864/-. 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Assessee had credited amount of Rs.4,14,87,985/- to the capital reserve contending that the said amount was a remission of loan liability. The Assessee stated that under the Industrial Backward Area Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, it was entitled to defer the Sales Tax liability for a period of 7 years under the Deferral Scheme of 1983 and for a period of 6 years under the Deferral Scheme of 1988. In response to a Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra regarding premature repayment of deferral Sales Tax at Net Present Value (NPV), the Assessee made a repayment of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492