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

2016 (8) TMI 61 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (8) TMI 61 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Rectification of mistake - chargeability of interest u/s 234B - whether the Assessing Officer could not have set-aside levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act while dealing with an application made by the assessee u/s 154 ? - Held that:- According to the assessee, during the previous year related to the assessment year under consideration, it could not have visualized the subsequent amendment made by Finance Act No. 2 of 2009 to Sec. 115JB of the Act with retro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this aspect. - The action of Assessing Officer in the course of disposing of assessee’s impugned application u/s 154 of the Act belies the stand of the Revenue. Notably, in its application seeking rectification of the interest charged u/s 234B of the Act, assessee also claimed that interest u/s 234D of the Act was wrongly charged, and also that the credit for tax was not correctly granted. The impugned order of the Assessing Officer dated 2.4.2013 reveals that so far as assessee’s pleas for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nu, Accountant Member And Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri Arvind Sonde Revenue by : Shri A.K. Kardam ORDER Per G. S. Pannu, AM The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai, both dated 23.07.2014, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2004-05, which in turn have arisen from separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer, both dated 02.04.2013 under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee-company submitted its return of income on 29.11.2003 declaring income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions and ₹ 240,50,25,600/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made vide order dated 28.2.2006 determining the taxable income at Rs. Nil after setting-off brought forward losses and income u/s 115JB of the Act was computed at ₹ 298,45,51,667/-. The CIT(A) passed an order dated 26.11.2007 and thereafter assessee approached the Tribunal, which passed an orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rious grounds, inter-alia, contending that the interest u/s 234B of the Act was wrongly charged. The plea set-up by the assessee was that interest u/s 234B of the Act has been charged on the tax payable on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act on account of addition made for Provision for bad and doubtful debts, which was made in the light of a retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009 to Sec. 115JB of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001. It was, 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

he CIT(A) there is no provision in the Act which specifies that interest u/s 234B of the Act could not be charged on the additions made consequent to any retrospective amendment to any of the provisions of the Act. Thus, he upheld levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. Before us, there is no dispute to the fact that the interest u/s 234B of the Act has been charged in the present case as a consequence of an addition made to the total income u/s 115JB of the Act in view of a retrospective amend .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) ii) CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008), 298 ITR 67 (Mad) iii) Trinity Forge v. ACIT (2001), 73 TTJ 582 (ITAT Pune) iv) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. v. DCIT (2001), 79 ITD 353 (Delhi ITAT) v) Hindson International v. ITO (2010), 133 TTJ 83 (Chd) vi) Canara Bank v. ITO (2009), 121 ITD 1 (Nagpur Bench) vii) DCIT v. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. (2011), 137 TTJ 517 (Delhi ITAT) viii) Sankhla Polymers (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2013), 84 DTR 154 (Kar) ix) Reliance Industries Ltd., ITA No.5247/Mum/2014 dt. 3.6.2016 4. 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

equent amendment in law. According to the assessee, during the previous year related to the assessment year under consideration, it could not have visualized the subsequent amendment made by Finance Act No. 2 of 2009 to Sec. 115JB of the Act with retrospective effect from 1.4.2001 whereby the Provision for bad and doubtful debts was liable to be assessed for determining the income u/s 115JB of the Act. The aforesaid argument of the assessee cannot be faulted and in fact, the aforesaid decisions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6. Before parting, we may also note another point made out by CIT(A) in order to sustain the levy of interest. According to CIT(A), the issue raised by the assessee was not a mistake which could be rectified within the limited scope of Sec. 154 of the Act. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR also reiterated the above plea and contended that being a debatable issue, the Assessing Officer could not have set-aside levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act while dealing with an application made by 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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