9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 972 as a Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee has made a profit of Rs.3,54,18,072/- including dividend income of Rs.3,83,03,458/- and gains on sale of short-term investments amounting to Rs.1,35,26,700/- during the year but after making a provision of Rs.2,47,86,370/- for the diminution in the value of its investments held on 31.03.2008 and previous year's provision of Rs.96,57,040/- has been reversed in accordance with the requirements of Accounting Standard 13 (ASB) issued in this behalf by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The main source of Company's income is Dividend and Long Term Capital Gains from its investments in Mutual Funds. The Company filed its original return of income on 29/09/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before filing its revised return of income on 30.09.2009 without taking into account any interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The Assessing Officer processed the return and levied the interest u/s 234B of Rs.2,70,851/- and u/s 234C of Rs.75,031/-. 3. The CIT (A) deleted the addition by holding as under :- " I have considered the facts stated by the assessee as well as by the Assessing Officer and since in assessee' case no Advance-tax was payable in the first place itself so therefore the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C is also not there, hence assessee's appeal is allowed. Further in 137 TTJ Page 517 section 2 DCIT vs. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. where also it is clarified that if the amendment is retrospective then how can ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 1 of subsection (2) of section 115JB w.e.f. 1.4.2001, the company became liable to pay tax under the provisions of section 115JB. The assessee has revised the return accordingly and paid the taxes. Thus, the assessee became liable to pay tax only to the retrospective amendment. On the last date as for the payment of the advance tax as provided under the Act or even on the last date of financial year relevant to Assessment Year in question the assessee was not at all liable to pay advance tax. In view of these facts and circumstances, the ld. AR submitted that his case is directly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Emami Limited vs. CIT reported in 337 ITR 470 (Cal.) and pleaded to sustain the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
