9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, as we have observed above, once net profit shown in the profit and loss account of the Company has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh inquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company. Therefore, the question of remitting the matter to the Tribunal does not arise. In our view the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) that there cannot be two incomes, one for the purpose of the Companies Act and another for the purpose of income-tax. We are of the opinion t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not in consonence with the provisions of Section 350 of the Companies Act, and, consequently, disallowed the excess depreciation and added that amount in the profit loss account. The assessee's appeal against this part was rejected by the appellate authority but was accepted by the first Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC). The Tribunal held as under: We have considered the rival submissioin and the decisions relied upon by the ld. A.R. Since the Revenue has not brought to our notice any other decision contrary to the decisions relied upon by the led. Counsel, we decide this issue in assessee's favour as covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter had a limited power of making increases or reductions as provided for in the Explanation to the said Section. The Supreme Court, consequently, held that the Assessing officer did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation to Section 115J. The said decision was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2008) 300 ITR 251 (SC) and again by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissiioner of Income-Tax Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co.Ltd., (2010) 320 ITR 399 (All), wherein the Court held: The Tribunal while deciding the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omes, one for the purpose of the Companies Act and another for the purpose of income-tax. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribuhal had allowed the appeal of the appellant merely by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (Supra) and such disposal of the appeal was not the proper way to deal with the appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, should have examined the matter and should have passed a reasoned and speaking order. It was submitted that since the Tribunal did not do so, the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter should be remitted again to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. In support of his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
