9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 28 - HC - Income TaxMAT minimum alternate tax Book Profit - . The assessee had filed its return declaring income at nil on 31st October, 2002. Since the income as per the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was computed at a loss of Rs.1,46,90,960/-, the Assessing Officer computed book profit under Section 115JB of the Act at Rs.64,30,227/- - On examination of the assessment records, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) noticed that in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) an amount of Rs.100 lacs received by the assessee-company from Messer Griesheim Gmbh was not included in the total income as per the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous, insofar as, it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT issued notice under Section 263 of the Act to the assessee. The assessee contended that the said amount of Rs.100 lacs was credited to the profit and loss account, and consequently to the book profit, which was adjusted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and, therefore, assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous ITAT deleted the additions made by the CIT u/s 263 held that - Since the amount of write back of the loan liability already forms part of book profit on which tax is levied, the Assessment Order cannot be branded as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue ITAT order confirmed decided in favor of assessee
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the assessment order under Section 263 of the Act. 3. Application of the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Interpretation of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act: The case involved a dispute regarding the application of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to an amount received by the assessee from a creditor. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) contended that the amount should have been included in the total income as per the provisions of Section 41(1). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that since the amount was already included in the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act and was not claimed as a deduction in previous assessment years, Section 41(1) did not apply. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 41(1) would only apply if the cessation of liability was in respect of a deduction allowed in previous assessment years. Validity of the assessment order under Section 263 of the Act: The CIT found the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT issued a notice under Section 263 to the assessee, leading to an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT examined the case and determined that the assessment order could not be considered erroneous under Section 263 as the amount in question was already part of the book profit and had been subjected to tax under Section 115JB. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not amenable to revision under Section 263. Application of the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: The ITAT referred to the decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that Section 41(1) was not attracted to the remission of a principal amount of a loan when no deduction had been allowed in respect of the loan. In the present case, the assessee did not claim any deduction or benefit of allowance for the amount in question, which had been credited to the profit and loss account and taxed as part of the book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on this interpretation of the law, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and subsequently dismissed the appeal. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, the validity of assessment orders under Section 263, and the relevance of prior legal decisions in determining tax liabilities.
|
