9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 115JB which is more than the tax liability computed under the normal provision of the Act. If for the time being, we presume that the issue discussed by the ld. PCIT is correct and after giving the effect of the issue raised by the ld. PCIT, even then the tax liability under the normal provision would be below than the tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act therefore there is no loss to the Revenue. Therefore, we can conclude that the order of the Assessing Officer may be erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In order to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the ld PCIT needs to satisfy two conditions namely, i) the order is erroneous and ii) the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 31.01.2018, passed by the Division Bench of Jaipur Tribunal in the case of M/s ARL Infratech Ltdin ITA No.404/JP/2016for the Assessment Year 2012-13 whereby the issue "that order passed by the assessing officer is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue when the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act payable by assessee is more than the tax liability payable under normal provision", has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of assessee. The ld Counsel submitted before us that it is settled proposition of law the Commissioner can invoke the provision of Section 263 of the Act only when the twin conditions being the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue are sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income as per the provisions of Section 115JB and charged MAT on the same. Therefore, we find that the claim of higher depreciation on the Energy Saving Equipments as well as pollution control equipments is not going to effect the Revenue when the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 115JB and MAT was charged. Even if the claim was disallowed if the higher depreciation claim was disallowed the tax liability under MAT was still higher than the normal computation. It is settled proposition of law the Commissioner can invoked the provision of Section 263 of the Act only when the twin conditions being the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue are satisfied. In the case in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under normal provisions of I.T.Act Amount (Rs.) Amount Amount (Rs.) Total income as per order u/s 154 /143(3) dated 14.08.2015 1,24,35,94,229 Add: Additional Depreciation as discussed at para no. 4 above 1,93,20,000 Total income 1,26,29,17,229 Tax liability 42,93,91,857 Computation of Tax Liability under u/s 115JB-MAT Book profit as per order u/s 154 / 143(3) dated 14.08.2015 2,68,51,68,595 Tax Liability 53,51,67,527 From the above two tables, we note that the tax liability of the assessee under the normal provisions of I.T Act comes at ₹ 42,93,91,857/-(after adjusting the disputed amount by ld PCIT), whereas the tax liability u/s 115JB-MAT comes to the tune of ₹ 53,51,67,527/- which is more than normal inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
