Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 772 - AT - Income TaxLevy of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB - profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) - assessee is neither the units in SEZ not a Developers of SEZ - HELD THAT:- Benefit of exemption from MAT is provided only for business, as specified, carried on by the persons who have got approvals under the SEZ Act and which are carried on in SEZ or units therein. In view of the above we do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that sub-section (6) is to be interpreted independently, thus making the assessee eligible for exemption from payment of MAT also, since it is a developer of housing projects, and dismiss all arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is not eligible for exemption from payment of MAT as per the provisions of section 115JB(6) since, admittedly, it does not qualify as a business or services rendered by an entrepreneur or developer in a unit or SEZ as per definition of the said terms in the SEZ Act”. The alternate contention of the assessee that profits eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act were to be reduced for arriving at the book profits of the assessee were also dismissed relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of SIDCUL Industrial Association Vs State of Uttarakhand [2010 (11) TMI 671 - UTTARKHAND HIGH COURT] Interest leviable u/s 234B and 234C - HELD THAT:- Apex Court in CIT Vs Kwality Biscuits Ltd. [1999 (11) TMI 48 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has unambiguously held that interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied on a company whose income is computed u/s 115J. Accordingly, in the face of the clear legal position as settled in the aforesaid decision, there cannot be any ambiguity.
|