JAP INFO SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/JPR/2021Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 October 2022AY 2015-162 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the action of the Assessing Officer was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the AO was sustained.

What were the facts?

The appeal was decided on 26-09-2022. A corrigendum was issued to rectify errors in the original order concerning the Assessing Officer (AO) and the sustenance of the order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer's order regarding book profit computation under Section 115JB was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 244/JP/2021
ITA No. 37/Coch/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

CORRIGENDUM The above mentioned appeal was decided vide order dated 26-09- 2022 but at page 28 in line 9 and 11 the word has inadvertently been typed as the ld. PCIT u/s 263 and quashed instead of ‘’AO’’ and ‘’sustained’’ which are rectified at page 28 in line 9 and 11 and it should now be read as under:-

‘’considered and therefore, the action of the assessee and thereby the ld. AO is in accordance with provision of the Act and there is no mistake apparent on record on account of exclusion of the same while computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. These views are fortified by the Cochin Bench and in fact decisions relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee. Being consistent with that order of the coordinate bench in in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. The Nilgiri Tea Estate Limited, we hold that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous and not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the same is required to be sustained’’.

2.1 Except the above rectification, there is no change in the Tribunal order

More judgments on Section 115JB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →