/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-2 [IT APPEAL NO. 146 (KOL.) OF 2021 dated July 22, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against the order dated March 30, 2021 (“the Impugned order”) passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (“the Respondent”) under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the IT Act”). It is challenged on the ground of the invocation of jurisdiction by the Respondent without satisfying the essential condition mentioned in Section 263 ibid which provides that the Assessing Officer’s (“the AO”) order has to be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
JMS Mining (P.) Ltd (“the Appellant”) claimed deduction on Income Tax Assessment under Section 80G of the IT Act which provides for claiming of deduction to certain funds, charitable institutions etc. The Appellant donated a certain sum of amount to Shree Charity Trust and a Music Academy Trust as contribution towards Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) activities. The same was allowed by the AO. Further, it was challenged by the Respondent by invoking revision jurisdiction under Section 263 ibid on the ground that the action of AO to allow deduction of CSR expenses was erroneous as it could not be allowed as per express prohibition under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the IT Act. Explanation 2 of Section 37 of the IT Act provides that expenditure of the activities relating to CSR shall not be deemed to expenditure of business or profession.
The Respondent contended that the AO passed the Impugned order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made therefore, clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263(1) of the IT Act is attracted in this case. The section provides power to the Commissioner to call for or examine record of any proceeding if he considers the order passed by AO to be erroneous.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on discussing that whether the AO’s order was erroneous relied on the case of Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3646 of 1993 dated FEBRUARY 10, 2000] wherein it was held that in order to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the IT Act, the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence to an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Noted that the AO after enquiring and receiving the reply from the Appellant explaining as to how the Appellant claimed deduction of CSR expenses along with reliance on case laws, it disentitles the contention of the Respondent that the AO did not verify or enquire making the same factually incorrect. Therefore, the assertion by the Respondent that clause (a) of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of IT Act is erroneous.
Further, noted that the Appellant satisfied the conditions under Section 80G of the IT Act, thus, the action of AO allowing the claim is plausible. The Respondent on the other hand has not been able to make out a case on the issue raised. Hence, usurpation of jurisdiction by the Respondent under Section 263 ibid is bad in law and thereby needs to be quashed.
Online GST Course by Bimal Jain
Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course
Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu
Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)
Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)
For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in P.R Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s United Spirits Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 548/2015 c/w I.T.A No. 37/2010 decided on September 2, 2021] answered in favor
In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sonu Realtors Private Limited [INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.956 OF 2017 dated October 11, 2021], Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (“the Appellant”) filed the appeal being
In Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker v. The Income Tax Officer [ITA No. 2267-2270/Chny/2019 decided on November 3, 2021] Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“ITAT”) held that rental income from
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court (“Orissa HC”) in the matter of Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India and Others [W.P. (C) Nos. 10587 OF 2009 dated October 27, 2021], held that assessment proceedings
In M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021], Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“ITAT”)