TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the audited account maintained in terms of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Whether Tribunal was correct in deleting the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer in respect of arrears of depreciation for A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 while working out the book profit u/s. 115JB without appreciating the fact that clause (iia) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB which provides for reduction of the depreciation debited to the P & L A/c. was inserted only in the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 and is, therefore, not applicable to the year under consideration? - Held that:- This issue was not urged before the authorities under the Act. Therefore in view of the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [2002 (4) TMI 42 - BOMBAY High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -02 by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd, 255 ITR 273? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in deleting the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer in respect of arrears of depreciation for A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02 while working out the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that clause (iia) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB which provides for reduction of the depreciation debited to the P L A/c. was inserted only in the Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 and is, therefore, not applicable to the year under consideration? 3. Re : Question No. 1 (a) During the course of Asessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrived at in terms of the Companies Act, certified by the auditors and accepted at the General Meeting of the Company. The only adjustment to arrive at the book profits for the purposes of Section 115JB of the Act is provided in the Explanation thereto. Thus deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. (c) Being aggrieved the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as it was in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres (supra). It also relied upon its own decision in the case of the respondent-assessee for Assessment Year 2004-05 and the decision of this Court in Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT [262 ITR 330] to hold that book profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 ITR 395] it cannot be urged before this Court for the first time. On the aforesaid facts above we see no reason to entertain this question. (b) In any case, the question as framed proceeds on a fundamentally erroneous basis that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee by relying upon clause (iia) of explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. Therefore the grievance of the Revenue that the above clause was inserted only in Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1st April, 2007 and is not applicable for the year under consideration does not carry the issue in the present facts any further. (f) In the above view Question No.2 also does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 5. Appeal dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
