9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by your appellant in respect of provisions for leave encashment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,48,723/- made by the Assessing officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 6,48,723/- made by the Assessing officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D while computing the Book Profit u/s 115JB. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai erred in levying interest u/s 234B & 234C of Rs. 41,160/- & Rs. 4,022/- respectively while computing the book profit u/s 115JB. 5. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be consistent with the disallowance computed in the preceding year. The order of the CIT(A) is thus set aside with the directions, as above, given to the AO, for recomputation of disallowance. The ground is thus treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next ground of appeal pertains to levy of interest u/s 234B & 234C, while computing the book profits under section 115JB. 7. The AR conceded that the issue is covered against the assessee in the case of JCIT Vs Rolta India Limited, reported in 330 ITR 470 (SC), wherein it has been held, (head notes), ".......Thus, there is no exclusion of section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B. The expression "assessed tax" is defined to mean the tax assessed on regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant explained to the AO that the company calculated the tax as applicable to capital gains without setting off the losses. Such tax liability had been worked out Rs. 3,04,745/- by applying the rates applicable to capital gains. However, since the tax liability under MAT was greater than the tax levied on capital gains and the tax paid by Company under mat amounted to Rs. 8,50,447/- which excluded interest paid. Therefore the appellant carried forward the loss of Rs. 53,20,823/-. The appellant further claimed before the AO that under the provisions of section 32 (2), it was entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed deprecation to any number of years for set off against the business profits and by virtue of section 72(2) the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case under consideration, the loss carried forward from earlier years was deprecation loss. As per provisions of 32(2), the same became part of the claim of deprecation of the year under consideration. Thereafter, as per provisions of section 71, the same was required to be set off against income under any head of income of the year under consideration including against the capital gains. In the facts and circumstances, the AO was correct in concluding that appellant was not entitled to carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation loss of earlier years without setting off the same against the capital gains of the year under consideration. The action of AO was as per law and is therefore upheld. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
