COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/334/2011HC GujaratGJHC24025172201112 June 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Earth Movers (245 ITR 428), had held that leave encashment and provision for gratuity, determined on the basis of actuarial valuations, fall outside the scope of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising in the appeal. Therefore, the Tax Appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The assessee is Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The dispute concerns the computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that amounts set aside by the assessee to provide for liabilities other than ascertained liabilities were not required to be added back. The Revenue is challenging this decision. The opponent (assessee) did not appear before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount set aside by the assessee to provide for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities was not required to be added back while computing the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in law by holding that provisions for liabilities other than ascertained liabilities should not be added back for book profit computation under Section 115JB. The Revenue likely contended that such provisions should be added back as per the Explanation to Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TAXAP/334/2011 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 334 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 12/06/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

TAXAP/334/2011 2/2 JUDGMENT We have heard Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue in this Tax Appeal. This appeal has been filed on the following proposed question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount set aside by the assessee to provide for meeting liabilities other than ascertained liabilities was not required to be added back while computing the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act?” The Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Earth Movers (245 ITR 428) has held that the leave encashment and provision for gratuity determined on the basis of actuarial valuations fall outside the scope of the provisions of clause (c) of the Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. We do not find that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. This Tax Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. SAHAI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) [SN DEVU PPS]

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →