9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any amount of book profit has in fact been increased, corresponding deduction may be availed in future. Since there has been no increase, there is no question of any deduction. - Decided against the assessee - ITAT 147/2011, ITA 134/2011 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - Girish Chandra Gupta And Asha Arora, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Appears with Ms. S. Roy Chowdhury, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. A. Mitra, Adv. Appears ORDER The Court : The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 7, 2011, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1254/Kol/2010, pertaining to the assessment year 2006- 07, by which the learned Tribunal allowed an appeal pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he I.T. Act, 1961, computing loss under normal provisions at ₹ 2,52,22,051/- and book profit under section 115JB at ₹ 6,62,77,000/-. Upon scrutiny, it was noticed that the computation of income under normal provisions was started with the net profit of ₹ 8,70,11,000/- for the year ended on March 31, 2006. But the computation of book profit under section 115JB was started with an amount of ₹ 7,39,58,000/- after excluding a sum of ₹ 1,30,53,000/- relating to a write back of the provision for diminution in the value of investment. Notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued. The assessee offered the following explanation in writing: In the Profit and Loss A/c. for the year ended 31.03.2001 the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed as such provision is also not included in the Book Profit. As such there is no mistake in computation of Book Profit u/s. 115JB for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation. He added the sum of ₹ 1,30,53,000/- in computing the book profit. In an appeal, the CIT(A) reversed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. In a further appeal by the revenue, the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Mr. Murarka, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that for the year 2000-01, corresponding to the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee had created a reserve of a sum of ₹ 7,05,73,000/- on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case may be; This submission of Mr. Murarka is plainly fallacious. The deduction can be claimed provided the amount of ₹ 7,05,73,000/- has been added to the book profit of the assessment year 2001-02. Admittedly, such addition was not made. Therefore, there is no scope for deduction as contended or claimed by Mr. Murarka. Mr. Murarka is interested in contending that in the year 2001-02, there was a loss of ₹ 3,00,08,000/- which, after various deductions, stood at a sum of ₹ 93,17,050/-. Mr. Murarka is further interested in contending that the loss of ₹ 3,00,08,000/- should be deemed to have been increased by the sum of ₹ 7,05,73,000/- and on that basis, the benefit for deduction should have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
