Bridgestone Corporation v. ACIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Karnataka State Co-Operative Federation Ltd. 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1509 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED Sesa Goa Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1981 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Abhinitha Foundation (P.) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1942 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0735 (Bom-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 1174 (Ahd-Trib) THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD D BENCH ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. & SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, J.M. Bridgestone Corporation, C/o Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT ITA No. 163/Ahd/2021 A.Y.2014-15 22 February 2023 Assessee by: Yogesh G. Shah, A.R. & Ms. Aparna Parelkar, A.R. Revenue by: Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-D.R. ORDER *Siddhartha Nautiyal, J.M.* This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/Intl. Taxn./Ahd/104/2017-18, in proceeding under section 250 of the Act vide order dated 22-4-2021 passed for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 'Your appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 13, Ahmedabad prefers this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds, which are without prejudice to each other. 1. The order passed by the Honble Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A)) is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and therefore requires to be suitably modified. It is submitted that it be so done now. 2. The Honble Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding action of assessing officer in rejecting claim of appellant for taxing long term capital gain on sale of shares as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act on ground that appellant has opted to pay tax as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(ii) in return and such change of claim is admissible only by filing revised return of income. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.1. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) erred - in not appreciating that appellant conservatively applied provisions of section 112(l)(c)(ii) in return of income on account of ambiguity in law prevailing at that time and pursuant to clarificatory amendment in law vide Finance Act 2017, appellant requested assessing officer to tax capital gain as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act. 2.2. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that filing of revised return is required for making fresh claim during assessment proceedings and in facts of case, appellant had not made fresh claim but merely sought re-computation of tax on capital gains owing to subsequent clarification in law. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.3. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even if claim is treated as fresh claim, then also, appellate authorities are bound to entertain rightful claim made otherwise than by filing revised return. 3. The Honble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer on ground that neither Finance Act 2017 nor CBDT has provided for any such mechanism to apply rate of 10% as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act from assessment year 2013-14. It is submitted that in absence of any ambiguity in law, clarificatory amendment in law does not require mechanism for its applicability. It is submitted that it be so held now. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 1174 (Ahd-Trib)

THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD D BENCH

ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. & SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, J.M.

Bridgestone Corporation, C/o Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT

ITA No. 163/Ahd/2021

A.Y.2014-15

22 February 2023

Assessee by: Yogesh G. Shah, A.R. & Ms. Aparna Parelkar, A.R.

Revenue by: Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-D.R.

ORDER

Siddhartha Nautiyal, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-13/Intl. Taxn./Ahd/104/2017-18, in proceeding under section 250 of the Act vide order dated 22-4-2021 passed for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

'Your appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 13, Ahmedabad prefers this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds, which are without prejudice to each other.

1. The order passed by the Honble Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A)) is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and therefore requires to be suitably modified. It is submitted that it be so done now.

2. The Honble Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding action of assessing officer in rejecting claim of appellant for taxing long term capital gain on sale of shares as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act on ground that appellant has opted to pay tax as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(ii) in return and such change of claim is admissible only by filing revised return of income. It is submitted that it be so held now.

2.1. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) erred - in not appreciating that appellant conservatively applied provisions of section 112(l)(c)(ii) in return of income on account of ambiguity in law prevailing at that time and pursuant to clarificatory amendment in law vide Finance Act 2017, appellant requested assessing officer to tax capital gain as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act.

2.2. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that filing of revised return is required for making fresh claim during assessment proceedings and in facts of case, appellant had not made fresh claim but merely sought re-computation of tax on capital gains owing to subsequent clarification in law. It is submitted that it be so held now.

2.3. Honble Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even if claim is treated as fresh claim, then also, appellate authorities are bound to entertain rightful claim made otherwise than by filing revised return.

3. The Honble Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer on ground that neither Finance Act 2017 nor CBDT has provided for any such mechanism to apply rate of 10% as per provisions of section 112(l)(c)(iii) of the Act from assessment year 2013-14. It is submitted that in absence of any ambiguity in law, clarificatory amendment in law does not require mechanism for its applicability. It is submitted that it be so held now.