Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

April 2024

Revision — Powers of Commissioner — Special deduction — Claim to deduction u/s 80-IA not made in return of income and assessment order passed — Principal Commissioner or Commissioner competent to consider claim for deduction — Matter remanded.

By K B Bhujle | Ritu Punjabi, Advocates
Reading Time 3 mins

95 TATA-ALDESA JVvs. UOI

[2024] 460 ITR 302 (Telangana)

A.Y.: 2014–15

Date of Order: 12th June, 2023

Ss. 80IA, 263 and 264 of ITA 1961

Revision — Powers of Commissioner — Special deduction — Claim to deduction u/s 80-IA not made in return of income and assessment order passed — Principal Commissioner or Commissioner competent to consider claim for deduction — Matter remanded.

For the A.Y. 2014–15, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application before the Principal Commissioner u/s 264 in which it submitted that it had commenced its business operations during the previous year 2013–14, and accordingly, the A.Y. 2014–15 was the first year under assessment and that though it was entitled to claim deduction u/s 80-IA because of a bona fide error, it did not claim it either at the time of filing the return of income or during the assessment proceeding. The assessee also sought condonation of delay of 52 days. The Principal Commissioner condoned the delay and observed that the assessee did not opt to make the claim to deduction

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Revision — Writ — Powers of Commissioner — Commissioner cannot consider application where appeal lies or is pending — Prohibition does not apply where writ petition has been filed.

Transfer of case — Transfer from one AO to another subordinate to different higher authority — Condition precedent — Agreement between two higher authorities — Assessee should be given adequate opportunity to be heard — Mere speculation that assessee was connected to group of companies against whom search proceedings undertaken and that cases had to be centralized — Order of transfer not valid.