9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -05 the return of income was filed declaring book profits of Rs.16,48,05,949/- on 28-12-2006. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act accepting the income returned by the assessee. 2.1 Thereafter, the CIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 of the Act issued show cause notice dated 05-12-2009. According to CIT, in the P & L account there was a debit entry on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs.1,32,94,610/-. According to CIT, this was an unascertained liability therefore, while considering the profit under P & L account the aforesaid amount should have been added in view of the provisions of Explanation( c) to Sec.115JB of the Act. Since the AO did not compute the book profits as aforesaid the CIT was of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the AO to consider the applicability of the aforesaid provision afresh. 6. By a notice dated 14-12-2005 issued u/s 154 of the IT Act, the CIT proposed to rectify his order dated 31-03-2009. The CIT in his notice pointed out that in the Finance Act(No.2) of 2009 had inserted clause (i) of Explanation(1) of sub-section(1) of Sec.115JB whereby any amount set aside as provision for dimunition of value of any asset has to be added to the profits as shown in the P & L account for computation of book profit for the purpose of Sec.115JB of the Act. Since the amendment was made to the retrospective effect from 01-04-2001, the CIT was of the view that his order dated 31-12-2009, whereby he directed the AO to examine the applicability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd.,(2007) 295 ITR 282(SC)... 11. We have considered the rival submissions. In Max India Ltd., (supra) the AO passed an order of assessment granting relief under section 80HHC of the Act with reference to the law prevailing as on that date. In view of a retrospective amendment the order of AO made such order inconsistent with the law as amended. But the order was right at the time when the assessment was made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no prejudice to the Revenue could be inferred, so as to justify the exercise of revisional power for amending the assessment inline with the amended law. In the present case, when the order u/s 263 of the Act was passed the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
