9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A), holding that the assessee is not covered under the exclusionary provisions of section 115JB(6) of the Act, and is thus liable to pay tax on its Book Profits as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. We therefore uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) on this ground, and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. - ITA No. 421/Chd/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2017 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal Respondent by : Shri Ravi Sarangal, DR ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, A. M. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed assessee's appeal on this ground stating that the assessee could not rely upon the exception carved out in section 115JB(6) since the said sub-section had been inserted by the Special Economic Zones(SEZ) Act, 2005, which defined the terms Units , Special Economics Zone , Developer and Entrepreneur and the assessee was neither an entrepreneur or developer as defined under SEZ Act, nor was it situated in a unit or SEZ as defined under SEZ Act. He, therefore, held that the assessee's did not fall under section 115JB(6) of the Act and thus upheld the action of the Assessing Officer charging Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act, in the present case. The relevant findings of the CIT (Appeals) at paras 4 and 4.1 are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Economic Zone, (also defined under the SEZ Act) as the case may be. The assessee is not situated in a Unit or Special Economic Zone (which are defined under SEZ Act, 2005) and the assessee is not a 'developer' under section 115JB(6)Therefore, the case of the assessee does not fall under u/s 115JB(6). The interpretation given on behalf of the assessee defies the logic of enacting the amended provisions of section 115JB. The exception cannot be as large as the main provision so such so to nullify the legislative intent of imposing tax on specified companies u/s 115J8. In the circumstances, there is no merit in AR's on the issue. Hence the action of the A.O. in charging the MAT in this case is sustained. Accordingly, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
