M/S. BBL DAIDO PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 898/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 September 2022AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had already considered the IND-AS adjustments while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC amounted to a double disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-Tax Act. The CPC made an adjustment, leading to a higher deemed total income under Section 115JB. The assessee argued this was a double disallowance of IND-AS adjustments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC's adjustment for IND-AS in the intimation under Section 143(1) constituted a double disallowance of amounts already accounted for by the assessee in its book profit computation under Section 115JB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 13.09.2022Pronounced: 16.09.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in CIT(A)/2019-20 dated 07.09.2020. The return of income was processed by the DCIT, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore

2 u/s.143(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 22.10.2019.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of AO of CPC in making adjustment while processing return and issuing intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act by making double disallowance of amount of Rs.10,26,771/- being the deemed total income u/s.115JB of the Act at Rs.1,89,15,738/- as against disclosed by assessee at Rs.1,78,88,967/-. For this, assessee has raised the following Ground Nos. 2 to 2.3:-

2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in double disallowing the amount of Rs.10,26,771/- being the IND-AS adjustments u/s 115JB (2A) of Rs.7,28,099/- (Refer part B in Form 29B) and 115JB (2C) of Rs.2,98,672/- (Refer part C in Form 29B).

2.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Book profit after adjusting (2A), part B-115JB(2B) and Part C- 115JB(2C) is Rs.1,78,88,968/- (Referred in part A-S.No-18) and offered as book profit u/s 115JB in the return of Income.

2.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that in the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 22.10.2019, the book profit was assessed by CPC of Rs.1,89,15,738/- (Rs.1,78,88,968 + 7,28,099+ 2,98,672) as against Rs.1,78,88, 968/-.

2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated

3 that the Appellant has already added back the two amounts under the IND- As adjustments from book profit as per the provision of 115JB, hence disallowing again amounts to double disallowance.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee explained that the DCIT, CPC erred in twice disallowing the amount of Rs.10,26,771/- being the IND-AS adjustments u/s.115JB of the Act of Rs.7,28,099/- which is reported in Part-B in Form No.29B and 115JB of the Act of Rs.2,98,672/-, which is reported in Part-C in Form No.29B. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the intimation issued by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act, whereby Item No.19, deemed total income u/s.115JB is assessed by the CPC at Rs.1,89,15,738/- as against declared by assessee at Rs.1,78,88,967/-. The ld.counsel for the assessee explained from Form No.29B dated 26.11.2018, which is enclosed in assessee’s paper-book at pages 8 to 12. He explained the entries of the adjustment amount already included as under:- 14. Add/ (Less): Amount of adjustments as referred to 728099 in subsection (2A) of this section where the financial statements of the company are drawn up in compliance with the Indian Accounting Standards specified in Annexure to the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015 for the previous year or any part thereof (amount from Sl.No.26 of Part B)

4 15. Add/ (Less): Amount of adjustments as referred to 298672 in subsection (2C) of this section where the financial statements of the company are drawn up in compliance with the Indian Accounting Standards specified in Annexure to the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015 for the previous year or any part thereof (amount from Sl.No.32 of Part C)

The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the computation part i.e., Memo of Income for the financial year ended 31.03.2018, whereby book profit u/s.115JB is at Rs.7,28,099/- was increased and further added 1/5th of increase in fair value of other equities at Rs.2,98,672/- and thereby the book profit computed by assessee u/s.115JB after considering these two amounts at Rs.1,78,88,968/-, thereby, the AO making these addition of Rs.10,26,771/- again while computing income u/s.143(1) of the Act, which is double addition.

4.

When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the above fact situation.

5.

After having considered the issue and facts narrated above, we are convinced that the assessee has already considered this amount of Rs.10,26,771/- while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act

5 in Form No.29B dated 26.11.2018 and it need not be considered again. Hence, we direct the AO to delete this amount. Accordingly, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 115JB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →