| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2389 2008 SLD 2389 (2008) 303 ITR 256 (2007) 163 TAXMAN 430 |
Delhi High Court
MADAN B. LOKUR AND V.B. GUPTA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MADAN B. LOKUR AND V.B. GUPTA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law:
Section:
[2008] 303 ITR 256 [2007] 163 TAXMAN 430 (DELHI) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-I v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. MADAN B. LOKUR AND V.B. GUPTA, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2005 MAY 24, 2007 Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1999-2000 - On 31-12-1999, assessee-company filed return declaring its income - During course of assessment proceedings, on 26-12-2001, assessee filed revised computation of income thereby assessee enhanced quantum of certain expenses which were disclosed in original return - Assessing Officer allowed expenses so claimed and completed assessment - Thereafter, Commissioner passed order under section 263 on ground that claim made by assessee during assessment proceedings by filing revised computation which was nothing but revision of return and same was beyond time prescribed under section 139(5) and as such, decision of Assessing Officer to allow said deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue - Whether since assessee had corrected claim allowable to it by virtue of provision of section 37(1) on account of expenditure which was incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business; and before Assessing Officer, assessee did not say that by making such a claim he had revised his return and original return must be taken to have been withdrawn, revised computation could not be treated as revised return - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, order passed by Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue - Held, yes FACTS For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee-company filed its return of income on 31-12-1999 declaring its income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee videletter dated 26-12-2001, filed revised computation of income claiming certain expenses. The assessee vide letter dated 19-3-2002 filed another revised computation of the income claiming further deductions. The Assessing Officer allowed the expenses claimed in the first revised computation of income but disal- lowed the deduction claimed in the second revised computation of income and completed the assessment.…
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