Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › The Tata Power Co Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Tata Power Co Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (tata_power_54EC_ltcg_losses.pdf)


S. 54EC deduction allowable before set-off of brought-forward loss

The assessee earned LTCG of Rs.233 crores and claimed deduction of Rs.124 crores u/s.54EC on account of investment in specified bonds of NABARD. The assessee also had brought forward long term capital loss of Rs.111 crores. The assessee first claimed deduction u/s 54EC and then, against the balance, set-off the brought forward losses. The CIT revised the assessment u/s 263 on the ground that the long-term capital loss had to be first set-off against the LTCG and the deduction u/s 54EC was allowable only on the balance. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

While s. 54EC is an exemption provision which exempts capital gains and takes them outside the purview of chargeable “capital gains”, s. 74 deals with the carry forward and set off of loss under the head “capital gains”. The stage at which set off of carried forward long term capital loss is to be given is subsequent to the stage at which income under the head capital gains is computed and deduction u/s 54EC is to be given in the course of the latter. Accordingly, s. 54EC deduction has to be given before set-off of losses.

For more on s. 54EC see Kumarpal Amrutlal Doshi vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Related Posts:

  • Tata Education and Development Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that these issues are of vital importance to all the stakeholders all over the country, and in our considered understanding, on such important pan India issues of far reaching consequence, it is desirable to have the benefit of arguments from stakeholders in different part…
  • ACIT vs. Celerity Power LLP (ITAT Mumbai) We find from a perusal of the 'memorandum‘ explaining the purpose and intent behind the enactment of sub-section (xiiiib) to Sec. 47, that prior to its insertion, the 'transfer‘ of assets on conversion of a company into a LLP attracted levy of "capital gains" tax. The legislature in all its…
  • Tata Communications Ltd vs. Addl CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In view of the legal discussion made above and facts of the case, it is clear that impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment…
  • Dalmia Power Limited vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) The more advisable course from the point of view of the Revenue would be to make one assessment on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both of Transferor or Transferee Companies and also to make separate protective assessments on both the Transferor and Transferee Companies separately. There…
  • ITO vs. Yadu Steels & Power Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides - assessee and Ld.AO, to adopt reasonable approach. Assessee before…
  • Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The effect of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) thus was clearly overruled by the legislative developments. It was specifically legislated that the mere fact of taxability in the treaty partner jurisdiction will not take it out of the ambit of taxable income of…

Related Judgements

  1. Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) 

    Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:
     
    (i) Though the…
  2. Hindalco Industries vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The department has the option u/s 166 to assess either the non-resident principal or the representative assessee. Once the choice is made and the income is brought to tax in the hands of the principal, the same income cannot be again assessed u/s 163 in the hands of a…
  3. Besix Kier Dabhol SA vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The argument of the revenue that the abnormal debt-equity ratio attracts the “Thin Capitalization Rule” and that the “debt” should be characterized as “equity” for purposes of considering whether interest is deductible is not acceptable. Several countries have detailed “thin capitalization rules” (e.g. Belgium). However, there are no such…
  4. Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    On merits, the CUP method is the ‘most appropriate method’ to determine the arm’s length price in the cases of generic drug manufacturers so long as comparables are available. As the API imported by the assessee was a generic drug and not patent protected, the CUP method could be…
  5. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) 

    S. 194C defines “work” to include “carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than railways” while s. 194-I defines “rent” to mean payment for use of “plant” (which is defined in s. 43 to include vehicles). As the cars were owned and maintained by the…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*