TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration. The case of the assessee falls in first category of cases as it was discovered beyond doubt that profit and loss account was not drawn up in accordance with the Part II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Therefore, respectfully following, the decision of the Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of Rain Commodities (2010 (7) TMI 794 - ITAT HYDERABAD ), we hold that the amount of ₹ 2,50,737 was correctly added by the Assessing officer while computing the book profit of the assessee and no interference is required in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 5773/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious year relevant to assessment year, however, out of which only ₹ 2,15,373/- was credited in the P L account, therefore, he added the balance amount of ₹ 2,15,737/- to the book profit of the assessee and assessed the income accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee accepted that while making entries for interest in the profit loss account, due to mistake at the lower level of the accounts department, this omission occurred but it was not intentional. However, the assessee requested that following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 273 (SC) and the decision of ITAT, Delhi bench in the case of DCIT Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted ₹ 2,15,373/-. In view of the submission of the assessee, the ld. AR argued that as the assessee was not required to credit the entire amount of interest of ₹ 4,66,110 in the year under consideration, the books of account for the year were in compliance to part II and part III of the schedule VI of the Company Act and, hence, relying on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra), the alteration in book profit was not justified. Learned Senior Department Representative, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities. 4. Both the ground no. 1 2 being inter connected, both are taken up together. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record The ld AR has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereon calculated in the following manner, namely:- (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or] paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of [onehalf per cent] for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined [under sub- section (1) of section 115 WE or] on regular assessment; (b) in any other case, such interest shall be calculated at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial pronouncements, the Assessing Officer can't open the accounts which have been drawn in accordance with the companies Act. The same argument was reiterated before us. We are not in agreement with the ld AR on this proposition of law. This issue has been dealt at length by the Special Bench of Tribunal in case of Rain Commodities ltd Vs DCIT reported in (2010) 4 ITR 551, after considering the judgement of the Apex court in the case Apollo Tyres Ltd (Supra) held that : We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record and the case laws relied upon by both the parties. We have taken into consideration the ratio decidendi of all the decisions relied upon by the rival parties. The omission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net profit as computed by the assessee and then make the adjustments under s. 115JB of the Act. It is common that some companies follow an accounting year under the Companies Act, 1956 which is different from the financial year under IT Act, 1961. These companies generally prepare two sets of accounts-one for Companies Act and another for IT Act. The reason being different accounting policies, standards, depreciation methods and rates are adopted in two sets of account so that higher profit is reported to shareholders and lower profit for the IT authorities. To curb the above practice only this recalculation of net profit under MAT was incorporated so that there should be a consistency in accounting policies, standards, methods and rates of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
