9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han 2003-04, which already been adjusted at ₹ 71,12,338/-. Therefore, he reduced ₹71,12,338/- from ₹ 1,5928,201/- and arrived at book profit of ₹88,15,863/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer stated that from Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2008-09, Explanation (b) to clause (iii) comes into picture and according to which the loss shall not include depreciation and that the provisions of this clause shall not apply if either the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation is NIL. Therefore, he did not allow any deduction for unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years while computing the book profit for the Assessment Year 2008-09. From the reading of the explanations before amendment and after amendment goe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits of the rival contentions, we find it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order of the ITAT and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal to re-examine the matter only on this limited aspect after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Hence, this appeal was fixed for hearing today. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that on perusal of the case records of the assessee company for Assessment Year 2008-09, it is revealed that the company is having book profit of ₹1,59,28,201/-, but the tax liability under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act was not worked out. He further observed that the Authorized Representative of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 159,28,201/- which is our claim less ₹ 71,12,338/ - (allowed by the Lr AO) has been disallowed by the Lr A.O. on the grounds that the workings of tax liability u/s 115JB of the IT Act were not found in the file. 2) That your appellants has claimed ₹ 159,28,201/- which is carry forward business loss as offset out of the book profits of ₹ 159,28,201/-. The details are enclosed in Annexure I. 3) The Lr AO failed to consider the submissions made vide our letter dated 15/10/2012 (Attached as Annexure II) seeking clarification on the basis of which the Lr AO has claimed that your appellants are entitled for set off ₹ 71,12,338/- only and not ₹ 159,28,201/-. 4) That the Lr AO did not provide the detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate order passed for A.Yr.2007-08, in the case of the appellant. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the A.O. and these technical grounds, raised by the appellant, challenging the reopening of assessment are dismissed accordingly. On merits, apart from working the MAT liability u/s 115JB, the A.O., in his assessment order, has also mentioned the computation of total income under normal provisions of the Act and position of losses and unabsorbed depreciation allowed to be carried forward. In his written submission, the learned A.R. has not been able to bring about any mistake in the computation done by the A.O. In view of this fact, the computation done by the A.O. is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIL ₹ 2,10,45,760/- 2006-07 NIL NIL 2007-08 NIL ₹ 93,96,103/- 2008-09 NIL NIL 9. We find that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed that profit as per profit loss account was ₹ 1,59,28,201/-. According to the Assessing Officer as per his letter dated 28/07/2016, as per provision of clause (iii) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB, no business loss or unabsorbed depreciation is to be reduced from net profit to arrive at book profit for Assessment Years other than 2003-04, which already been adjusted at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
