2017 (8) TMI 132 - HC - Income Tax

MAT computation - Unascertained liabilities covered by Explanation (c ) of Section 115JB - added back for computation of book profit of the assessee - Held that - As decided in Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 1(2) Baroda Versus Inox Leisure Ltd. 2013 (2) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein held no hesitation in upholding the Tribunals view that though actual payment of gratuity may be made at a later point of time upon periodical release of the employees from service it is provision having been made on actuarial basis it cannot be stated to be an uncertained liability so as to add it back in terms of Clause (c) to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of remanding proceedings by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for disallowance under Section 14A.
2. Interpretation of Explanation (c) of Section 115JB regarding unascertained liabilities.

Issue 1 - Disallowance under Section 14A:
The High Court admitted the tax appeal to consider whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in remanding the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The Tribunal directed that if disallowance under Section 14A is necessary, the amount should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. The Court decided to hear this issue along with another tax appeal.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of Explanation (c) of Section 115JB:
The Revenue proposed an additional question related to the interpretation of Explanation (c) of Section 115JB concerning unascertained liabilities. The question raised was whether the ITAT was correct in dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue without considering that unascertained liabilities are covered by Explanation (c) of Section 115JB. The Counsel for the Revenue referred to a previous case where a similar question was decided against the Revenue. The Court examined the provisions of Section 115JB, emphasizing that if a provision is made for liabilities that are not ascertained, it should be added back to the book profit of the company. However, if the provision is for ascertained liabilities, no addition back is required. The Court cited various judicial precedents to support the interpretation of unascertained liabilities and concluded that the provision made for gratuity liability based on actuarial valuation method cannot be considered an unascertained liability. Therefore, the question raised by the Revenue was not considered in the tax appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Gujarat High Court provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues related to disallowance under Section 14A and the interpretation of unascertained liabilities under Explanation (c) of Section 115JB.