9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. (Oral):- This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act, for short) relates to Assessment Year 1989-90. The following substantial question of law was admitted for hearing vide order dated 30th November, 2000:- "Whether the Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 115-J so far as mode of computation of income is concerned?" 2. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) agreed with the Assessing Officer on the question of carry forward of loses, including investment allowance. He, however, allowed some relief to the respondent-assessee on additions made under the normal provisions. 5. Aggrieved, the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal. No appeal was preferred by the appellant-Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the normal provisions have been explained. It has been held that Section 115-J (1) commences with the non-obstante clause and provides for two stage assessment. The first stage requires computation of income under the normal provisions and the second stage requires computation of book profits as per provisions of Section 115-J. In case the income computed under the normal provisions is less than 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et displaced or erased and adjustments made have to be given full effect to. 8. Accordingly, the question of law mentioned above has to be answered in favour of the appellant-Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that similar issues had arisen for Assessment Years 1988-89 and 1991-92, but Revenue had not preferred any a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
