TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs. Thus, the amount of unabsorbed depreciation was less and, therefore, assessee was eligible to get the benefit of the same a deduction from the book profits to compute the taxable amount of book profits u/s 115JB. Thus, there was no mistake, much less a mistake apparent on record, and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly quashed the order passed u/s 154. No interference is called for in the order of the ld.CIT(A), and therefore, the same is hereby upheld. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.ITA No.4463/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2016 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER) For The Appellant : Surbhi Sharma For The Respondent : Suresh Malik ORDER Per ASHWANI TANEJA, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was denied. 3. On the other hand, the Ld.counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the bench that the Assessing Officer misunderstood the facts of the case in A.Y. 1999-2000. The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed losses by applying the provisions of section 79. Against the said order appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein order of the Assessing Officer was reversed and Assessing Officer was directed to allow carry forward of earlier year losses. The ld.counsel also drew our attention on a chart showing year-wise break up of unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation showing that the total amount of unabsorbed depreciation aggregating to ₹ 308.89 lakhs was lower than the unabs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off of unabsorbed depreciation aggregating to ₹ 308.89 lakhs was rightly granted by the Assessing Officer himself in the original order passed u/s 143(3). The brief submissions of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and finding of Ld.CITA)are reproduced as under:- 4.1 (C) The appellant's AR further argued that even on merits there is no mistake in the figure of ₹ 3,08,89,000/-- representing the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account, considered for working out the figure of book profit u/s.115JB in assessment order dated 31.12.200B and hence 'here was absolutely no case for rectification of this figure. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Volkat Brothers (19761) reported in 82 ITR page 50 and Hero Cycles Ltd Others reported in 228 ITR page 463, I am of the considered view that the A.O. has not exercised his power available u/s.154 correctly as the provisions of section 154 restricts the power of the AO. to mistakes apparent from the record. Hence, even on this pretext also, the AO.'s order cannot be held to be justified and sustainable. Further, even in the appellate proceedings, the appellant's AR filed a detailed chart of calculation of amount eligible for deduction u/s. '115JB of the Act since the appellant company's inception from F.Yr.1993-94 to F.Yr.2003-04 which is based on the audited accounts of the appellant company which were filed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by ld.CIT(A), with following observations : The next ground of appeal is directed against the disallowance of brought forward losses. The AO had invoked section 79 of the IT Act and has disqualified the earlier losses for carry forward and set off because share holding pattern of the appellant company was substantially changed. It was submitted by the appellant that the said provisions are not applicable to public ltd company and therefore it is entitled to carry forward the losses even on change of share holding pattern. Since the appellant is a public Ltd company listed on stock exchange the carry forward of earlier losses cannot be denied to the appellant in terms of section 79. . The AO is directed to allow the carry forward of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
