9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Mr. Manish J. Shah for Mr. J.P. Shah for the Respondent. JUDGMENT JUSTICE D. A. MEHTA - At the time of admission on 09.07.2007 following two questions were formulated by the High Court : "(1) That the Appellate Tribunal has seriously erred in law and on facts in holding that preparation of profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI, Part II and III of the Companies Act which is different from the profit and loss account approved at the Annual General Meeting is permissible?" (2) That the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of interest of Rs. 9,64,179/- payable on disputed excise duty?" 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1989-90, the relevant accounting period being p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire expenses are debited and (ii) other in which only 1/5th expenses are debited, is apparently for the purpose of getting approval of the shareholders by presenting its profitability in the better line but for the purpose of income this device would not hold true. For the purpose of computation u/s.115J, the book profit as worked out in the Profit Loss Account as per published audited accounts, approved by the Annual General Meeting, showing the profit at Rs.4,64,91,985/- would alone be considered". 4. The assessee carried the matter in Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) but did not succeed. In Second Appeal filed before the Tribunal, the assessee succeeded for the reasons recorded in impugned oder dated 6.1.1999. 5. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to the impugned order of Tribunal to point out that in paragraph No.6 the Tribunal had referred to and relied upon its own order in the case of Dinesh Mills Vs. DCIT (ITA No.2627/Ahd/92-93). That the said order of Tribunal in case of Dinesh Mills was carried by way of Income Tax Reference No. 122 of 1996 before this High Court and vide judgment reported in (2008) 302 ITR 164, the High Court upheld the view expressed by the Tribunal. That the issue raised by the second question therefore stood concluded by the aforesaid judgment. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent-assessee in the first instance pointed out an unreported oral order dated 14.3.2007 in case of CIT Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. rendered in Income Tax Reference No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repared subsequently was in accordance with Parts II III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, but was different from the profit and loss account approved at the Annual General Meeting, and whether such an exercise was permissible. Applying the ratio of the Apex Court decision, one can say that the only requirement of provisions of sub-section (1A) of section 115J of the Act is that the accounts, more particularly, the profit and loss account, for the relevant previous year has to be prepared in accordance with Parts II III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act and accounts so prepared have to be certified by the Chartered Accountants. In the facts of the present case, it is not found by any authority that the revised accounts submitted wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
