9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rectificatory orders under section 154 adjusting unabsorbed depreciation against gross total income for assessment years. 2. Disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC by Assessing Officer. 3. Applicability of judgments in similar cases. 4. Validity of rectificatory orders under section 154. 5. Levy of additional tax under section 143(1A). 6. Challenge against levies of interest under section 234B. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with appeals filed by the assessee against rectificatory orders under section 154 for two successive years where the Assessing Officer adjusted unabsorbed depreciation against gross total income. The issue was whether such adjustments were valid. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the rectifications under section 154, leading to further appeals by the assessee. The tribunal analyzed relevant provisions and held that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer were in accordance with the law, considering the definition of 'gross total income' and the necessity to adjust unabsorbed depreciation before allowing deductions under Chapter VI-A. The tribunal dismissed the appeals challenging the rectificatory orders. 2. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the deduction claimed under section 80HHC by the assessee in the returns. The assessee contended that the rectification under section 154 was incorrect and that the deduction under section 80HHC should have been allowed before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation. The tribunal referred to various judgments and held that the disallowance of portions of the deduction under section 80HHC was valid as the original claim was allowed wrongly. The tribunal dismissed the appeals against the disallowances. 3. The assessee relied on judgments from the Karnataka High Court and the Bombay High Court to support their contentions regarding the rectificatory orders and disallowance of deductions. The tribunal examined the applicability of these judgments to the present case and concluded that they did not apply. The tribunal emphasized the need to adjust unabsorbed depreciation before allowing deductions under Chapter VI-A, as per relevant provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in a similar context. 4. The tribunal upheld the validity of the rectificatory orders under section 154, stating that the Assessing Officer followed the procedures laid down in section 80HHC to compute the total income of the assessee. The tribunal found the rectifications to be in accordance with the law and dismissed the appeals challenging the rectificatory orders. 5. Additional tax was levied on the differences between the total income computed by the Assessing Officer and the amounts of unabsorbed depreciation claimed in the returns. The tribunal found the levy of additional tax to be in accordance with the amended provisions of section 143(1A) and did not identify any defects in the levy of additional tax. The appeals against the levy of additional tax were dismissed. 6. The assessee challenged the levies of interest under section 234B, citing a judgment of the Patna High Court. However, the tribunal noted that the Patna High Court itself reconsidered its earlier decision and referred the matter to a larger bench. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the levies of interest under section 234B. In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee, upholding the rectificatory orders, disallowances of deductions, levies of additional tax, and interest under sections 143(1A) and 234B.
|
