9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puting the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the disallowance of ₹ 20,00,000/- of head office expenses is not in order while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the I.T. Act and in directing the Assessing Officer to delete it. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest u/s. 234D of the I.T. Act has no retrospective application without appreciating that the provisions of sec. 234D are procedural and compensatory in nature and as such can be applied to proceedings of earlier assessment years pending as on 1-6-2003. 1.1. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the assessee the learned CIT(A) observed, with regard to provision for wealth tax and head office expenses, as under : I have considered the facts and perused the material on record. Clause (a) of Explanation below section 115JB (2) provides that amount of income tax paid or payable and the provisions thereof shall be added back while computing book profit. Income-tax does not include wealth tax. In the case of CIT vs. Echjay Forgings P. Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom.) it was held that net profit cannot be increased by the amount of wealth tax. Similar view was also expressed in JCIT vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2006) 105 TTJ 543 (Kol.) (SB). In view of these facts, the addition of ₹ 1,05,213 made on account of weal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer has not assigned any reason and he had no authority to recast the profit computed as per books. Since the learned D.R. was unable to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A), we confirm the Order of the CIT(A) on these issues and reject ground Nos.1 and 2 of the Revenue s appeal. 5. As regards ground No.3 learned CIT(A) followed he decision of the ITAT, Delhi, Special Bench in the case of Ekta Promoters 305 ITR 1 (Del.) (SB) to hold that interest under section 234D should not be charged in the case of the assessee for assessment year 1991-92 since amendment is prospective in operation. Learned DR was unable to contradict the findings of the learned CIT(A) and did not refer to any contrary decision on the issue. Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
