TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest chargeable to tax u/s 234B on the MAT determined u/s 115JB - CIT(A) opinion that interest is not chargeable on deemed income and tax thereon as relying on Kwality Biscuits Ltd.[ 2006 (4) TMI 121 - SC ORDER] - HELD THAT:- As DR has not pointed out any contrary decision on this aspect. we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and reject ground of the Revenue. Method of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC - determination of book profit u/s.115JB - As per CIT(A) deduction under s. 80HHC has to be computed after taking 'book profit' as total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- View taken by the learned CIT(A) is in conformity with the decision of Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.[ 2007 (3) TMI 288 - ITAT BOMBAY-H] held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s it would be hit by the provisions of s. 43B r/w s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) followed the decisions of the Tribunal to hold that payments made within the grace period are not hit by the provisions of s. 43B. 3. Learned Departmental Representative was not able to place any contrary decision on record. We therefore, hold that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for interference. 4. As regards ground No. 3, the case of the Revenue is that interest is chargeable to tax under s. 234B of the Act on the MAT determined under s. 115JB of the IT Act, 1961. Learned CIT(A) was however, of the opinion that interest is not chargeable on deemed income and tax thereon, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted after taking 'book profit' as total income of the assessee. In the light of following decisions, the learned CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee. (i) Dy. CIT vs. Govind Rubber (P) Ltd. (20q4) 82 TTJ (Mumbai) 615 : (2004) 89 ITD 457 (Mumbai); (ii) CIT vs. G.T.N. Textiles Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (Ker) 185 : (2001) 248 ITR 372 (Ker); (iii) Starchik Specialities Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Hyd) 546 : (2004) 90 ITD 34 (Hyd). 7. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable on facts in as much as they were dealing with the provisions of s. 115J/115JA of the Act whereas, provisions of s. 115JB are differently worded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egorically held that the view taken by the Tribunal, Special Bench, Mumbai is overruled [CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (2009) 223 CTR (Bom) 441 : (2009) 23 DTR (Bom) 1]. He then clarified that the Tribunal, Special Bench was called upon to answer two questions i.e., (a) method of computation of deduction under s. 80HHC and (b) percentage of deduction allowable in each year. As regards the percentage of deduction allowable, the Tribunal took a view that assessee would be entitled to 100 per cent deduction and the view taken by the Tribunal, Special Bench was followed in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. On an appeal filed by the Revenue, while answering a specific question raised before the High Court, the Court observed that an assessee would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
