TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) as per explanation (iv) to section 115JB? - Held that:- This issue is no longer resintegra as it stands concluded in favour of the appellant-assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Bhari Information Technology Systems P. Ltd, [2011 (10) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Computing book profit u/s. 115JB the deduction should be of 100% of the amount calculated u/s. 80HHC(3)- Held that:- This issue is also no longer res-integra. This is so as it stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT [2010 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue. Levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D on income taxes payable on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 115JB of the Act, the appellant is entitled to reduce the net profit as per Profit and loss Account by the profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC computed with reference to book profit (after adjustments) as per explanation (iv) to section 115JB ? III. Whether in computing book profit u/s. 115JB the deduction should be of 100% of the amount calculated u/s. 80HHC(3) i.e. ₹ 1,33,65,804/- and not ₹ 1,06,92,643/- being the quantum of deduction eligible u/s. 80HHC(1B) ? (IV) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D on income taxes payable on the deemed income u/s. 115JB of the Act ? 2. Regarding Question no. I : (i). Dr. Shivram, Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also no longer res-integra. This is so as it stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. CIT, 327 ITR 305 in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Respondent-Revenue. (ii) Accordingly, this question has to be answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-Revenue. 5. Regarding Question no. IV : (i). Mr. Shivram, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that this issue stands concluded against the appellant-assessee and in favour of the respondent-Revenue. This, by the decision of this Court in Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rolta India Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 470. (ii) In the above view, this question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
