#1
28th July 2015, 08:27 AM
| |||
| |||
National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Cit
Hello sir would you please provide me details about this topic National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Cit which was held on 4 December, 1996 by the Supreme Court of India????
|
#2
29th July 2015, 09:32 AM
| |||
| |||
Re: National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Cit
Hello friend I am having this information........................... National Thermal Power Corporation Vs Cit National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1998 (99) ELT 200 SC, 1998 229 ITR 383 SC, (1997) 7 SCC 489 Bench: A Ahmadi, K Ramaswamy, S V Manohar ORDER A.M. Ahrnadi, CJI, K. Ramaswamy and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, JJ. 1. The assessee carries on the business, inter alia, of construction, generation, operation and maintenance of thermal power stations and associated transmission network. 2. During the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee had deposited its funds which were not immediately required, on short-term deposits with banks. Interest received on such deposits during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79 amounted to Rs. 22,84,994/-. This was offered by the assessee for tax assessment and the assessment was completed on that basis. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), a number of grounds were taken by the assessee challenging the assessment. However, the inclusion of this amount of Rs. 22,84,994 was neither challenged by the assessee nor considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). From the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The inclusion of the said amount of Rs. 22,84,994/- was not objected to even in the grounds of appeal as originally filed before the Tribunal. However, by a forwarding letter dated July 16, 1983, the following additional grounds were sought to be raised by the assessee: (1) The sum of Rs. 22,84,994 deducted from "Statement of expenditure during construction" cannot be included in the total income. (2) It is contended that on admission (erroneous), no income (the sum of Rs. 22,84,994/-) can be included in the total income. (3) The authorities below have erred and failed in their duty in not adjudicating the facts and evidence on record and mechanically including Rs. 22,84,994 in the total income. |