TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 (12) TMI 279 - ITAT DELHI] had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Before us, Revenue has not placed any distinguishing facts in the case of the assessee and that in the year under consideration and that for earlier years nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 has been set aside/ stayed or overruled by higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid facts we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thus the grounds of Revenue dismissed. - ITA.No.8652/Del./2019, Cross Objection No.197/Del./2022 Arising out of ITA.No.8652/Del./2020 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2023 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri N.K Choudhry, Judicial Member F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JB. Thereafter the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 31.03.2017 which was served on the assessee. Thereafter assessment was take-up scrutiny and consequently, assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s.143 (3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 29.11.2018 and total taxable income u/s. 115JB was determined at 1,24,14,41,441/- . 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 21.08.2019 in Appeal No. 10305/300/CIT(A)- 7/Del/2018-19 granted substantial relief to the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following effective ground : 1. That the Order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the same has been allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) 7. That the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 21(1), New Delhi erred both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs.8,13,00,000/- to the Book Profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of additional liability relating to prior periods. The addition so made is not warranted at all and therefore is prayed to be deleted in the interest of justice. 8. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Officer, erred in charging interest under section 234 D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and withdrawal of interest U/s 244A. 9. That the learned Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s u/s. 115JB of the Act. In response to the query of the A.O. assessee made the submissions which were not accepted by AO. AO noted that identical issue arose about the disallowance of prior period expenses arose during A.Y. 2012-13 in that year and the amount of prior period item was added back for the purpose of computation of income under MAT. A.O. was thus of the view that the provision for additional liability relating to prior should be added back to income u/s. 115JB of the Act. He accordingly made its addition for computing of income u/s. 115JB of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of A.O. assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). 9. Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee noted that identical issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, Revenue has not placed any distinguishing facts in the case of the assessee and that in the year under consideration and that for earlier years nor has placed any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 has been set aside/ stayed or overruled by higher judicial forum. In view of the aforesaid facts we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and thus the grounds of Revenue dismissed. 14. Since we have dismissed the appeal of Revenue therefore in view of the submissions of Ld. A.R, the Cross objection filed by the assessee being supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A), have been rendered academic and therefore required no adjudication and therefore dismissed. 15. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
