ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Deletion of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Pune

Brief :
These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the separate orders dated 28-10-2016 & 10-01-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-4, Pune in relation to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14

Citation :
ITA Nos.695 & 1356/PUN/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos.695 & 1356/PUN/2017

Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

DCIT, Circle-6,
Pune

vs

Sakal Papers Ltd.,
595, Budhwar Peth,
Pune 411 002
PAN : AACCS7605Q

Assessee by Shri Ashok N. Kothary
Revenue by Shri Deepak Garg
Date of hearing 20-10-2021
Date of pronouncement 21-10-2021

These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the separate orders dated 28-10-2016 & 10-01-2017 passed by the CIT(A)-4, Pune in relation to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Since the issues raised in these appeals are common, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) amounting to Rs.52,97,053/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee suffered losses in the eligible wind mill unit in earlier years. Since the amount of such aggregate losses was more than the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) for the year at Rs.52.97 lakh, the AO disallowed the deduction. The ld. CIT(A) reversed the assessment order on this point, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed Rs.6,26,21,766/- as deduction on account of Wage Board Revision by filing a revised return. The AO did not dispute the filing of the revised return. On being called upon to explain the reasons for claiming such deduction, the assessee submitted that consequent upon notification of the Central Government in terms of section 12 of Wage Act dated 11-11-2011, the assessee revised its claim pertaining to the year under consideration. The AO observed that no corresponding payment was made during the F.Y. 2011-12.
Though such payment was claimed to have been made in the period relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15, the AO disallowed the same.

4. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st October, 2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement.
 

 

Poojitha Raam
on 23 November 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 16
downloaded 11 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags