GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 367 - ITAT LUCKNOW

2016 (3) TMI 367 - ITAT LUCKNOW - TMI - Addition on account of sale of carbon credit - capital receipt or Revenue receipt - Held that:- As decided in case of CIT Vs. My Home Power Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 82 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns and no assets is generated in the course of business but it is generated due to environmental concerns and therefore, it was held that the Tribunal has correctly held that this is a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see by showing lesser amount of sale proceeds as against actual realization of higher sales proceeds because if the assessee is doing so, then there is no need to show such high sale price of ₹ 120 to ₹ 150 per quintal for about 51,500 Quintals out of total sale of 615,631 Quintals. This has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on this basis that there is no evidence in the possession of the Assessing Officer which goes to prove that the assessee had actually sold the declared bagasse at & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- ITA No.417, 418/LKW/2013, CO No.26, 27/Lkw/2013, ITA No.339/LKW/2013, ITA No.518, 53/LKW/2015, ITA No.569/LKW/2015 - Dated:- 9-2-2016 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Ajeet Kumar, CIT DR For The Respondent : Shri A.K. Gupta, CA ORDER PER BENCH: Out of this bunch of eight appeals and cross objections, there are three appeals of the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 and there are three appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addition of ₹ 96,30,992/- made by A.O. on account of sale of carbon credit treating it as income of the assessee. 3. Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas the Ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. My Home Power Ltd. reported in 365 ITR 82. He has submitted that copy of this jud .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f appeal is regarding nature of receipt on account of sale of carbon credit and in the case of CIT Vs. My Home Power Ltd. (Supra) also, the dispute before Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court was this as to whether the amount received by the assessee on transfer of carbon credit is capital receipt or Revenue receipt. It was held by Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in that case that carbon credit is not an offshoot of business but an offshoot of environmental concerns and no assets is generated in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t case and in the case of CIT Vs. My Home Power Ltd. (Supra) and therefore, respectfully following this judgment of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is rejected. 5. The Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue are as under:- 2. That the order of Ld CIT(A) is erroneous in law and facts in restricting the addition to ₹ 1,00,000/- instead of ₹ 3,24,708/-/- made by A.O, on account of mis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 16.09.2015. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal s order and pointed out that same two issues were raised by the Revenue in that year as per Ground Nos. 3 and 4 and the Tribunal rejected both these grounds of the Revenue in that order as per paras 11 to 16 of that Tribunal s order. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in Assessment Year 2007-08, similar issues were before the Tribunal in that year also and in that year, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c defect in the maintenance of account but at the same time, the assessee has not placed any evidence on record to justify that all expenses claimed by the assessee are duly vouched and open for verification. The Tribunal held in that year that under these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the addition to ₹ 1.00 lakh under each head. In the present year also, these two disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer on general basis without .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under:- 4 That the order of Ld CIT(A) is erroneous in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,85,43,165/- made by A.O. on account of suppressed production and sale of bagasse. 9. Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas it is submitted by Ld. AR of the assessee this issue was also before the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2007-08 as per Ground No.5 in that year and it was held by the Tribunal in that year that the Assessing Officer was justified in estimating the yi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of yield of bagasse from Assessment Year 2004-05 to Assessment Year 2008-09 and thereafter, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is justified in estimating the yield of bagasse at 34%. Since in the present year, the yield of bagasse reported by the assessee is 34.27% which is more than 34% estimated by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2007-08, we find force in the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee that no addition is called for in the present year on this issue under these facts. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas Ld. Ld. AR of the assessee of the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is as per following paras on pages 18 and 19 of his order which are extracted as under:- I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that the assessee had created the fund for creation of tank for molasses. This was as per the directi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tank in accordance with the specifications given by the Central Government. Therefore, there was diversion of title at the source of the income collected under the directions given under the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order. The sum in question was not includible in the assessee s total income. This is also the view contained in the order of Madras High Court in Salem Coop Mills Ltd reported in 229 ITR 285 (Mad). This view is also supported by the judgments of the Honorable Supreme court in CI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld not show us as to how these judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also. Accordingly, Ground No.5 is also rejected. 15. The Ground No.6 of the Revenue is as under:- 6. That the order of Ld CIT(A) is erroneous in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 80,03,203/-made by A.O. on account of low value of bagasse claimed and sold the same in open market at ₹ 80,03,2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 150 per qtl. and the average of entire sales comes to ₹ 67.88 per qtl. The rate of ₹ 80 per qtl. has been adopted by the Assessing Officer on this basis that this rate was disclosed by Pooranpur and Majhola Sahkari Chini Mill for the present year. Since the assessee has shown some sales at ₹ 150 per qtl., some at ₹ 130 per qtl. and some at ₹ 120 per qtl. also, it cannot be said that lesser sales proceed of bagasse has been shown by the assessee without bringing s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sing Officer which goes to prove that the assessee had actually sold the declared bagasse at ₹ 80 per qtl. or at a higher rate then what has been declared by the assessee and in the absence of such information or evidence, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. In the facts of the present case, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, this Ground is rejected. 18. The Ground No.7 of the Revenue is as under:- 7. That the order of Ld CIT(A) is e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ision of Interest I find substance in A.R. s submissions. The liability could be treated as an ascertained liability. The same is directed to be allowed. 21. Since the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue is not a speaking order, we feel it proper that this matter should go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of speaking order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore this matter back to his file for fresh decision by way of speaking and reaso .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cumstances of the case, applicable law, written explanations filed by assessee, case laws and precedence relied on by assessee .Therefore, relief allowed by learned CIT(A) on various issues, may be confirmed and the ground nos. 1-8 of departmental appeal may be dismissed. B. Grounds to seek further relief: 1. For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in confirming disallowance on estimated and adhock basis to the extent of Rs.one lakh out of Miscellaneous Expenses and Rs. one lakh out of repairs and Mai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er expenses the disallowances out of miscellaneous expenses Rs, one lakh and out of repair and maintenance expenses Rs. one lakh totaling Rs. two lakh, being on presumption of lacunae, may kindly be deleted fully, (these grounds are related with ground nos. 2 and 3 of departmental appeal). 25. It was submitted that by Ld. AR of the assessee that these grounds are interconnected with Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue in its appeal and these are also covered by the same Tribunal s order in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ues are decided against the assessee and accordingly these grounds of the CO are rejected. 28. In the result, CO of the assessee is dismissed. 29. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 i.e. 418/Lkw/2013. 30. The Ground No.1 of the Revenue is as under:- 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,77,08,800/-made by A.O. on account of sale of carbon credit treating it as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Revenue are as under:- 2. That the order of ld CIT(A) is erroneous in law and facts in restricting the addition to ₹ 1,00,000/- instead of ₹ 3,50,050/-made by A.O. on account of miscellaneous expenses. 3. That the order of Ld CIT(A) is erroneous in law and facts in restricting the addition to ₹ 1,00,000V- and granting relief of ₹ 8,25,190/- made by A.O. on account of building and machinery repairs. 33. Both sides agree that these two grounds are also identical to Ground n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) is erroneous in law and facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,29,29,258/- made by A.O. on account of suppressed production and sale of bagasse. 35. Both sides agreed that this issue is identical to Ground No.4 in Revenue s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09. It was submitted by the Ld. AR of the assessee that in the present year, Assessing Officer has noted in para 5 of the assessment order that the assessee has disclosed yield of bagasse at 34.69% and since yield of 34% bagasse in Asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is rejected. 37. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 38. Now, we take up the CO filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 i.e. CO No. 27/Lkw/2013. 39. It was submitted by Ld. AR of the assessee that the CO is withdrawn and accordingly, this CO of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. 40. In the result, CO of the assessee is dismissed. 41. Now, we take up the appeal of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d, to make a computation of total income and then a computation of tax payable on total income could be made. 2. For that Id. CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the grounds no. 6 and 7 in appeal before him, by not following the binding judgment of the Calcutta High court in the case of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd, approving order of ITAT, and other decisions relied on by assessee, in which it has been held that when there is no computation of Gross Total income, deductions under chapter VIA could not be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unal have not been challenged before the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the judgments relied on by assessee, in cases of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd, Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd and Neeraj Vanijya P. Ltd are binding in view of law laid down in case of Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC). 4. For that learned CIT(A) was wrong in applying decision of ITAT, Kolkata, in case of Bhatkwa Tea Industries Ltd, and impliedly applying decision in case of DCW Ltd of Bombay Tribunal, though in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or carry forward, there is no - computation of gross total income from which deductions can be allowed to compute total income and a computation of tax payable can be made, and therefore, the pre-conditions to apply section 115JB are not satisfied and in view of the judgment of the Calcutta Tribunal in case of Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. which has been approved by the Calcutta High Court, and attained finality, and other judgments of Calcutta Tribunal which also have attained finality, section 115JB .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n, location of sugar mill, internal check and control system, audit system, fact that major payments are made through banking channels and tax has also been deducted wherever applicable, and also petty nature of some of other expenses the disallowances out of miscellaneous expenses Rs, one lakh and out of repair and maintenance expenses Rs. one lakh totaling Rs. two lakh may kindly be deleted fully. 8. For that during pendency of this appeal, the learned AO may be directed not to press for dispu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

particularly when learned CIT(A) has allowed relief on similar ground of appeal of Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 heard and decided by him at the same time . Alternatively the learned AO may be directed to allow initial depreciation u/s 32(1) (iia) as an incentive and one time allowance @ 20% of cost of new eligible plant and machinery, as allowed by the learned CIT(A) in Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 44. As per Grounds No. 1 to 5 of the appeal, the issue involved is regarding appl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bunal s order rendered in the case of Neeraj Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.1504/Kol/2008 dated 31.10.2008 copy which is available on pages 84 to 87 of the paper book and also on one more Tribunal s order rendered in the case of Sasamusa Sugar Work Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1024/Kol/2007 dated 28.09.2007, copy available on pages 88 to 89 of the paper book. He also pointed out one judgment of Hon ble Kolkata High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. in GA No. 3015 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case of Tribunal s order rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra), the assessment year involved was Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2001-02. Provisions of Section 115JA are applicable in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after 1st April, 1997 but before the 1st April, 2001. As per provisions of Section 115JA of the Act, if the total income computed under this Act is less than 30% of book profit then the total income of such asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mal provisions of the Act is less than seven and half percent of book profit in the present year, then the assessee has to pay tax at the rate of 7.5% of book profit. This rate of 7.5% has since been increased first to 10% then to 15% and thereafter to 18% and now this is 18.5%. But the rate is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in dispute for the purpose of examining as to whether the Tribunal s order rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra), is applicabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red to be reduced from the amount of book profit as per profit and loss account, it was held that the provisions of Section 115JA are not applicable but in the present case, after insertion of Section 115JB of the Act, there is no comparison to be made between 30% book profit and total income as per normal provisions of Act and therefore, the very basis of this Tribunal decision is not in existence. Now after insertion of Section 115JB of the Act, what is required is to compare the tax payable u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

having rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra) is not rendering any help of the assessee in the present case. The judgment of the Hon ble Kolkata High Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra) is in respect of Assessment Year 2002-03, when the provisions of Section 115JB is applicable and this was the question before the Hon ble Kolkata High Court as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that when there is no gross total income as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Hon ble Kolkata High Court is not a speaking judgment and it was held by the Hon ble Kolkata High Court that from the perusal of the Tribunal order, it appears that the Tribunal has extensively dealt with the matter and no substantial question of law is involved in that case. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon ble Kolkata High Court does not lay down a binding precedent that too out of its own jurisdiction. We also find that the Tribunal order in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecided on the basis of Section 115JA of the Act. Although one of the year before the Tribunal in that order also was Assessment Year 2001-02, wherein the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act was applicable and although the Tribunal has noted in Para 42 of that Tribunal s order available on page 81 of the paper book that in this year, the provisions of Section 115JB are applicable but while deciding the issue as per Para 44 of the Tribunal s order, the Tribunal has not taken note of the differe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olkata High Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra), and we have already seen that the judgment of Hon ble Kolkata High Court rendered in the case of DCIT Vs. Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. (Supra) and the Tribunal s order in that case are not laying down binding precedent and therefore, any Tribunal s order by blindly following these judicial pronouncement also are not laying down a binding precedent. As per the above discussion, we find that none of the judicial pronoun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able to tax. He placed reliance on a Tribunal s order rendered in the case of M/s Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. The Addl. CIT in ITA No.503/JP/2012 dated 27.01.2014. He submitted a copy of this Tribunal s order. In particular, our attention was drawn to Para 40 of this Tribunal s order. It was submitted in that case also, same issue was before the Tribunal as to whether the receipt on account of carbon credit is to be reduced from book profit u/s 115JB of the Act or not and the Tribunal has decided this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecided the issue in favour of the assessee by following another judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 255 ITR 147 (SC), wherein it was held that the court should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the facts situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. In this regard, our attention was also drawn to Para 13 to 13.11 of this Tribunal s order. Ld. DR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bunal s order are para 13 to 13.11 of this Tribunal s order and the same are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- 13. We have heard the rival submissions and considered them carefully. We have also perused the orders of authorities below as well as other material on which our attention has been drawn. We have taken into consideration the ratio decidendi of all the decisions relied upon by the rival parties. 13.1 At the outset, the issue in hand is covered in favour of the as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ales Tax Exemption was a capital receipt & not a revenue receipt, ignoring the basic purpose for which the same was given which itself provides that the subsidy was given to the Assessee to enhance the production, employment & sales in the state of Rajasthan, which are all post operational activities From the above, it could be clearly seen that Hon ble High Court admitted only the ground as to whether the impugned subsidy was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. Hon ble High Court ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court and we are in respectful agreement with the same. 13.2 Our above view also finds support from the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT .(1992) 195 ITR 877 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that Capital Receipts are not income within the definition of Sec 2(24) of the Act and hence are not at all chargeable under the I.T. Act. A receipt which is neither Profit nor Income and which does not have any element t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(2002) 255 ITR 147 (SC) that Courts should not place reliance on the decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. 13.4 From perusal of the decisions of Rain Commodities (supra) and Growth Avenues (supra), we notice that both the decisions dealt with the issue of taxability of capital gains in computing Book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. These capital gains were otherwise income u/s 2(24) of the Act and ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above, which in turn is supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court, various high courts & Special Bench of the Tribunal. That being the case, it does not have any income or profit element embedded in it, since the incentive was granted to encourage industrial growth of industrially non developed area. No one can make profit out of the subsidy or incentive granted to it. Hence, it is not chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act as held by the Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In a recent decision, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd -vs- CIT (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) has held that the object of MAT provisions is to bring out the real profit of the companies. The thrust is to find out the real working results of the company. Inclusion of receipt in the computation of MAT would defeat two fundamental principles, it would levy tax on receipt which is not in the nature of income at all and secondly it would not result in arriving at real work .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es Act, 1956 (1 of J956). 13.7 On consideration of the above, it is apparent that for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB Profit and Loss a/c shall be prepared as per Part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. Part II of Schedule VI prescribes the requirements as to Profit and Loss A/c. Clause 2{a) of Part II clearly spells that the profit and loss a/c shall be so made out as clearly to disclose the result of the working of the company during the period covered by the accoun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra). In the case of Apollo Tyres (supra), the question before the Apex Court was whether an AO can, while assessing a company for income tax u/s 115J of the IT Act, question the correctness of the P&L tic prepared in accordance with requirements of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act. From the question as framed before the Apex Court it is clear that the issue before the Hon ble Court was with regard to power of the AO to recast audited account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as above is supported by the decision of-the Special Bench in the case of Rain Commodities (supra), which incidentally has been relied upon by DR. On examination of the said order, we find that at Para 17 (last sub-para) & Para 18, after considering the decision of Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra), Special Bench have held that if Profit & Loss account is not in accordance with Part II & Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, it is permissible to alter the net profit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 115JB. 13.10 Our view per Para 13.8 above is also supported by, the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bombay Diamond (supra) & that of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) [both analyzed in Para 12.1 above], where also Tribunal, after considering the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra) and explaining the same, have permitted adjustment to the Profit as per P&L Account, so as to comply with Schedule VI, Part II & Part III o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt rendered in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. ((Supra) and thereafter, it was noted by the Tribunal in this case that as per the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 41 DTR 449, if profit and loss account is not in accordance with Part II & Part III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 because it is prerequisite for Section 115JB of the Act. The Tribunal in this case also considered two another Tribunal s orders rendered in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of Shree Cement Ltd. (Supra) decided this issue in favour of the assessee and it was held that capital receipt in the form of sales tax subsidy needs to be excluded from profit as per P&L account for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. By respectfully following these Tribunal s orders, we hold that in the present case also, the receipt on account of transfer of carbon credit which is held to be a capital receipt needs to be excluded from profit as per P&L accou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 for Assessment Year 2008-09 and the same can be decided on similar line. In Assessment Year 2008-09, we have decided this issue against the assessee and therefore, in the present year also, this issue is decided against the assessee and accordingly grounds no. 6 and 7 are rejected. 52. Regarding additional ground, it was submitted by Ld. AR of the assessee that since this issue was not decided by the Ld. CIT(A), the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ld. CIT(A) that any additional ground was raised by the assessee before him. Apart from this, no supporting document has been produced before us to establish that any additional ground was raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) which he did not decide. There is no discussion or disallowance on this account in the assessment order also. Hence, this additional ground is not arising out of the orders of the lower authorities and hence, the relevant facts are not available on record and therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance out of repairs and maintenance expenses of ₹ 50,000/-. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the applicability of section 11 5 JB of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on the facts and circumstances of the case and confirming the assessment al book profit of ₹ 38,06,07,184/- and imposing the Minimum Alternate Tax of ₹ 5,70,91,078/-. 4. Such other relief as may crave i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eciation, the provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable. 58. Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 59. We have considered the rival submissions. Regarding Ground Nos. 1 and 2 we find that this issue is squarely covered against the assessee because in Assessment Year 2008-09, disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 1.00 lakh under each head whereas the present year, disallowance made and confirmed is only & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is decided against the assessee and Ground No.3 is also rejected. 61. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 62. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 518/Lkw/2015. 63. The Grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance out of miscellaneous expenses of ₹ 50,000/-. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e will not be Gross Total Income, therefore section 115 JB will not be applicable.. 4. Such other relief as may crave in during the course of proceeding of the appeal and found equitable or justified by the Hon ble Tribunal. 64. It was agreed by both sides that all three grounds raised by the assessee in this year are identical to the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore in the present year also, all the three grounds can be decided on similar line .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Income Tax (Appeals ) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of Miscellaneous Expenses at ₹ 2,98,238/-. (2) That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of Repairs and Maintenance Expenses at ₹ 6,29,228/-. (3) That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ) is erroneous in law and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version