9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifying the effect of the above Apex Court decision. Thus, prior to 31.3.2010, assessee could not have foreseen the retrospective amendment of law, and hence, assessee company cannot be expected to do the impossibility of paying advance tax as per the law not on the field as on 31.3.2010. Under identical circumstances, courts have held that interest under S.234B and S.234C need not be charged merely because there was variance between book profit computed based on retrospective amendment. The Learned Departmental Representative has not placed any decision of the higher forum wherein a contrary view has been taken on this issue. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by the CIT(A) does not call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urned loss of ₹ 12.10 crores under the normal provisions of the Act and income of ₹ 53.55 lakhs under S.15JB of the Act. Though the return was originally processed under S.143(1), it was later on taken up for scrutiny by issuing a notice under S.143(2). During the course of examination, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee reduced an amount of ₹ 3,15,18,576 from the book profit towards deduction under S.80HHC of the Act whereas no such deduction under S.80HHC was admissible from book profits. When called upon to explain, the assessee company submitted that the deduction was claimed in the context of Apex Court decision in the case of Ajantha Pharma Ltd. V/s. CIT(327 ITR 305). However, this section has been amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tch of imagination, it can be held that there was any default on the part of the assessee in payment of advance tax in accordance with provisions of S.208 to S.210 of the Act, and consequently, the Assessing Officer erred in charging interest under S.234B and234C. Assessee also challenged other disallowances. 5. The learned CIT(A) observed with regard to disallowance of expenditure under S.14A of the Act, that investment was made out of interest free funds and, at any rate, the disallowance, if any, deserves to be restricted to ₹ 4,45,750 as against ₹ 26,65,090 made by the Assessing Officer. As regards the derivative loss of ₹ 50.49 lakhs, the learned CIT(A) noticed that the transaction matured/crystalised during 2009 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions, and, at any rate, assessee could not have anticipated retrospective amendment to discharge the tax liability as per the amended provisions of the Act, and hence, it is not a fit case for the charging of interest in the light of the decisions referred to by the learned CIT(A). It is also submitted that there is no contrary view in the matter, and the view which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. We are concerned with the previous year commencing on 1.4.2009 and ending on 31.3.2010. As per the decision of the Apex Court, assessee was entitled to deduction under S.80HHC for the purpose of computation of book profit under S.115JB of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
