9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on the relevant facts in the two sets of assessment years in question. We thus decline this latter substantive ground as well.- Decided against revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s hereinabove (supra) have already settled the issue against the Revenue. The said orders form part of the case file. The relevant discussion therein reads as follows: "11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue, perused the material along with the orders of authorities below. W e have also gone through the decisions cited by the respective representative before us. It is not in dispute that the assessee was consuming power from two sources i.e GEB and Captive generation plant of its own. The GEB was being paid at the rate of 4.9 per unit while the power procured from Captive Unit installed by the assessee for the purpose of computing eligible profit the assessee has taken the market value of the power produced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made at the market value of such goods [or services] as on that date " The above concept of transfer pricing is also apparent in R.7 of IT Rules, 1962 provided for determining the income from agricultural produces consumed by the agriculturist-assessee in his business as raw material. The rule provides that in the case of income which is partially agricultural income and partially income chargeable as business income, in determining that part which is chargeable to income-tax, the market value of any agricultural produce which has been raised by the assessee and utilized as a raw material in such business shall be deducted at the prevalent market value. This principle has been considered and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antive ground raised at Revenue's behest in both the appeals is declined. 5. The Revenue's latter substantive ground avers that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting disallowance/addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 13,72,726/- and ₹ 14,41,902/- on account of provision made for bonus (assessment year wise). The Assessing Officer admittedly treated the same as a contingent liability only. We notice that the CIT(A)'s order deals with the instant latter issue as under: "10.1 While computing the book profit u/s 115JB, the Assessing Officer added back an amount of ₹ 13,72,726/- as Provision for Bonus. Relevant portions of the Assessing Officer's order has been reproduced in para 8.2 (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establish that such allocable surplus was more than 20% of salary of this year and then only, it may be accepted that it was a certain liability...." 10.5 During the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted the Computation of the Allocable Surplus under section 1(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, for the year ending 31.03.2008. The assessee has further submitted as under in this regard- "It is submitted that the provision for bonus was made for ₹ 13,72,726/- which was computed @20% of the eligible salary for the year under the Payment of Bonus Act. The same was provided in the books of accounts as per the Payment of Bonus Act as well as as per the applicable Accounting Standard and provisions for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of this, as well as in view of the observations of Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2007-08, this attains the character of ascertained liability. Therefore, it is held that the provision for leave encashment of ₹ 13,72,726/- is not to be added for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act. The assessee succeeds on this ground of appeal." 6. It is thus apparent herein as well that this tribunal's co-ordinate bench's decision has already cleared the air qua this latter issue against the Revenue by concluding that the above bonus is very much in the nature of an ascertained liability not to be added for the purpose of computing Section 115JB book profits. Shri Shinde fails to point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
