9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Tribunal erred in law by restricting financial expenses for trading export to Rs. 18,59,109/- disregarding the fact that the assessee did not submit unit wise working before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the claim of the assessee could not be verified by the Assessing Officer? [B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the indirect cost attributable to trading goods be calculated unit wise instead of being calculated as per Section 80HHC(3) Explanation (e) of the I.T. Act, 1961? [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing to reduce the prior period expenses of Rs. 71,16, 879/- for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the trading export in this manner. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the view taken by CIT(Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal. No question of law arise. 5. With respect to Question[C], the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown profit after tax in the P&L Account at Rs. 10.27 crores (rounded off). The assessee had, thereafter, made appropriation for sum of Rs. 71 lakhs (rounded off) being prior period expenses and had shown profit for appropriation at Rs. 9.56 crores( rounded off). The Assessing Officer, therefore, was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 115JA computation of the profit after tax at Rs. 10.27 crores would reflect the correct book profit. 6. The assessee carried the matter in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at Rs. 9.56 crores, the Assessing Officer thereafter could not have added the sum of Rs. 71 lakhs since prior period expenses does not find place in any of the clauses of Explanation to sub-Section(2) of Section 115JA. 9. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that Explanation to sub-Section(2) of Section 115JA would warrant addition of Rs. 71 lakhs in the book profit of the assessee company for the purpose of computation under Section 115JA of the Act. 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 Income-Tax vs. HC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
