Income Tax : Detailed overview of corporate tax rates, surcharges, and MAT for AY 2021-22 to AY 2025-26, applicable for various domestic and ma...
Income Tax : Understand deferred tax assets and liabilities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 — their meaning, recognition, timing vs. permanent...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : Learn about Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) for Indian companies, including its purpose, calculation under Section 115JB, and the proc...
Income Tax : Concept of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) was formally introduced in Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act. It evolved over time, becom...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The computation of book profit under section 115JB is a complicated and vexed issue with diverse interpretations possible on vario...
Income Tax : The computation of book profit under section 115JB is a complicated and vexed issue with diverse interpretations possible on vario...
Income Tax : Relaxation in the provisions relating to levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) in case of companies against whom an application for ...
Income Tax : Relevant part of MAT-Ind AS Committee Report dated 17th June, 2017 containing recommendations regarding amendment to the provision...
Income Tax : Transfer of passive infrastructure (PI) assets under a court-approved scheme of demerger without consideration qualified as a gift...
Income Tax : The Tribunal examined whether an increase in loans was due to fresh borrowing or reclassification. It remanded the matter for veri...
Income Tax : The case addressed whether income can be corrected without filing a revised return. ITAT held that genuine computational errors ca...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules actuarial provisions for employee benefit schemes are allowable under Section 37(1) as ascertained liabilities, ...
Income Tax : The case examined reopening based on a prior disallowance under Section 80IB(10). The Court found that the disallowance had alread...
Income Tax : Representations have been received from the stakeholders seeking clarification on following issues relating to exercise of option ...
Income Tax : Details of the amount required to be increased or decreased in accordance with sub-section (2A) of section 115JB- [Applicable only...
Income Tax : Clarifications with FAQs on computation of book profit for the purposes of levy of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under section 115JB...
Income Tax : CBDT press release on Issues arising from the implementation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions relating to Indian Accounti...
Income Tax : References are being received by the Board that in certain cases appellate authorities are dismissing appeals without going into t...
On perusal of orders of authorities below, we agree that facts and issue involved in Ground No.2 of appeal for assessment year 2009-10 are identical to ground No.2 & 3 of appeal for assessment year 2008-09, which we have discussed in paras 7 to 9 hereinabove. For the reasons mentioned in para 9 hereinabove, we allow Ground No.2 of appeal taken by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10.
There is no quarrel on the point that the assessee, being an insurance company is not required to prepare its accounts as per Parts II & III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. Sub-section (2) of section 211 are required every profit and loss accounts of the Companies shall be prepared as per the requirement of Part II of Schedule VI.
Unit in SEZ will be covered by sub-section(6) to section 115JB of the Act irrespective of the fact that those units were claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act. We also observe that benefit given to SEZ unit from the applicability of provisions of section 115JB has been withdrawn by the Finance Act, 2011 by inserting a proviso to section 115JB(6) of the Act,
After going through the assessment order, annexure-1, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may have submitted his returns showing his total income as ‘NIL’ and has shown book profit of Rs. 2,05,86,930/- under Section 115JB but A.O. has not proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 115JB and clearly mentioned in first para of the order itself that “the case was duly processed u/s 143(1)(a) and thereafter on selection of the case of scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued.” Such notices were duly responded by the assessee’s representative and the case was contested and proceeded under Section 143(1)(a) and assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961.
While computing book profits the AO added Provision for Doubtful debts of Rs.3,53,35,020/- debited to the profit and loss account to the profits arrived at in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sec.115JA(2) of the Act. The question whether provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances have to be added while computing book profits u/s.115JA of the Act has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee because of the retrospective amendment introduced in Section 115JA of the said Act.
The Assessing Officer is not competent to make addition to the book profit for amount of interest, as the net profit had already been computed as per provisions of the Companies Act. The said amount does not fall under section 115JB(2) and Explanation 1 thereunder. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue on the said issue was liable to be dismissed.
Assessee contended that it is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 54EC of the Act even while computing book profit chargeable to tax under section 115JB of the Act. The Bench, while passing the order, followed the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court to hold that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 54EC of the Act while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act.
ACIT Vs. Parablic Drugs Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It has to be held that all of these expenditure were incurred by the assessee in the course of its business and none of the expenditure can be classified as expenditure in the nature of capital. The case law relied upon by the ld. AR supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, we found no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the assessee has been held eligible for deduction of these expenditure under both the sections either u/s 35(1)(i) or u/s 37(1) of the Act.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while computing book profits and since the order of the CIT relates to non-disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income under clause (f) to Explanation(1) of sec 115JB; therefore, in view of the decisions cited above, the period of limitation provided for in 263(2) would commence from the date of original assessment which, in the instant case is 22.3.2004. Since the order of the CIT u/s 263 is dated 30.3.2009, therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Ruchi Strips & Alloys Ltd vs. DCIT held that the concealment of income had its repercussions only when the assessment was done under the normal procedure. If the assessment as per the normal procedure was not acted upon and it was the deemed income assessed u/s 115JB which became the basis of assessment, the concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. The concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all.
