9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Scheduled VI to the Companies Act cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer. The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the P&L A/c. except to the extent provided in the Explanation to section 115J - for the purpose of section 115J of the Act, only those adjustments, which are specified in the explanation to section 115J can be made from the book profits and depreciation not being one of them and further the accounts of the company having been prepared in accordance with Schedule VI to the Companies Act, the AO was in error in disallowing the depreciation as claimed by the company – thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 1940 of 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.404/Ahd/2002 and others for Assessment Year 199798 and others held as under: 5. Having heard both sides, we have carefully gone through the impugned orders of the authorities below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the case of Apollo Tyres Limited 255 ITR 273 (SC) is squarely applicable, wherein it is held that while assessing a company for income tax under section 115J the correctness of the P L A/c. prepared by the assessee company and certified by the statutory auditors of the company as having been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part II and III of Scheduled VI to the Companies Act cannot be examined by the Assessing Officer. The AO does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t u/s.115JB of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thus, the ground of appeal of Revenue is rejected. 4.0 A Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.109 of 2010, decided on 13.12.2011, has held in para:10 that the Assessing Officer could not have varied the Profit and Loss Account of the company duly audited and prepared in terms of the provisions contained in the Companies Act which is extracted as under: 10. In that view of the matter, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the assessee, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2002] 255 ITR 273 and in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. reported in [2008] 305 ITR 409(S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
