TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bench of the tribunal in Akshar Associates vs. ACIT [ 2015 (12) TMI 123 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] deleted identical disallowance by following hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision CIT vs. JJ Industries [ 2013 (7) TMI 577 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holding that for the purpose of ascertaining ceiling on the basis of book profits, the profit shall be that stated in P L account. We draw support therefrom and conclude that assessee s income cannot be notionally excluded for the purpose of determining allowable deduction of partner s remuneration u/s. 40(b) - delete the impugned section 40(b)(v)(2) disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 555 & 556/Ahd/2012 A Y 2006-07 & 2008-09 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - Shri Pramod Kumar, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elieve that assessee s income liable to the taxed had escaped assessment. This culminated in issuance of section 148 notice dated 25/02/2010. The assessee s return in response thereto came on 17-03-2010 stating the above determined income of ₹ 28,32,510/-. 4. The Assessing Officer took up reassessment. He came across assessee s P L account crediting bank FDR interest of ₹ 4,45,190/-, debenture interest of ₹ 1,46,995/-; totaling to ₹ 5,92,185/-. The same had also been included in P L account for remuneration. The Assessing Officer was of the view that this gross interest sum had to be deducted for the purpose of computing book profits. And also that assessee s partner s remuneration was excessive to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome is to be computed. We opined that all other incomes under the heads house property, capital gains other sources credited to P L account had to be deducted from net profits to compute book profits. He accordingly excluded assessee s interest income of ₹ 5,92,185/- from book profits and computed consequential excess remuneration to partners of ₹ 2,36,874/- resulting in the impugned disallowance in reassessment framed on 27-06-2010. 6. The CIT(A) has upheld Assessing Officer' action in making the impugned disallowance. This leaves assessee aggrieved. 7. We have heard both the parties. Relevant facts narrated hereinabove are not repeated for the sake of brevity. There is no dispute about the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
