S. 80IB (10)(b) specifies the size of the plot of land but not the size of the housing project. While the plot must have a minimum area of one acre, it need not be a vacant plot. The object of s. 80IB (10) is to boost the stock of houses. There can be multiple housing projects on a plot of land having minimum area of one acre

The AO should examine & compute the disallowance on the basis of what is laid down in Maxopp Investment Ltd 203 TM 364 (Del). However, the quantum of disallowance, if any, to be made by the AO will not exceed the disallowance which was made in the original assessment order as reduced by the CIT(Appeals)

S. 220(6): Guidelines laid down on how stay applications should be dealt with The assessee, a mutual fund, was a beneficiary of a trust named India Corporate Loan Securitisation Trust which was set up for securitising a loan of Rs.300 …

UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Read More »

In several judgments of this Court, the parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 220(6) of the Act have been spelt out. In KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158, the importance of reasoned orders being passed on the stay applications was emphasized. The AOs consistently refuse to follow the law laid down in the judgment of this Court. The AO & the appellate authorities are duty bound to act in accordance with binding precedent and there is no reason or justification to act in the manner in which the applications for stay have been disposed of in this case

The power which is vested in the AO u/s 220(6) and on the CIT (A) to grant a stay of demand is a judicial power. It is necessary for both the AO as well as the appellate authorities constituted under the Income-tax Act to have due regard to the fact that their function is not merely to act as tax gatherers, but equally as quasi judicial authorities, they owe a duty of fairness to the assessee. This seems to be lost sight of in the manner in which the authority has acted in the present case. The parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant a stay of demand has been set out in several judgments of this Court, including in KEC International vs. B.R.Balakrishnan 251 ITR 158. The assessee’s submissions on merits require consideration. The CIT (A) ought to have devoted a more careful consideration to the issue as to whether a stay of demand was warranted. As out of a total demand of Rs.1.18 crores, Rs.78 lakhs has been adjusted, the balance has to be stayed

The principal object of s. 80-I is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering tax incentives. A reasonable and purposive construction should be adopted. There is no logic in the argument of the department that the true test would be as to whether a new industrial undertaking can function independently of the existing industrial undertaking. If this argument is accepted, it will amount to adding a new clause in s. 80-I of the Act. The fact that the new unit is not capable of independently producing the goods without taking the assistance of the existing plant and machinery of the old unit is no ground to reject the claim u/s 80-I. The test laid down in Textile Machinery Corporation 107 ITR 195 (SC), namely that the new unit should have a “separate and distinct identity” is not violated only because the new undertaking is to a certain extent dependent on the existing unit. It all depends on the nature of the technology and the mechanism of production. One cannot ignore the fact that new machinery and new plant have been installed at an investment of Rs.7 crore and the fact that production has gone from 34000 MT to 75000 MT (Associated Cement Company 118 ITR 406 & other judgements distinguished /explained)