Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

255 ITR 273Supreme Court of India2002#88 most cited

What is Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For the purpose of computing book profits under Section 115J, arrears of depreciation, including those arising from assets working extra shifts, are a necessary charge on profits if debited to the profit and loss account and are allowable as such.

657

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Apollo Tyres Ltd v CIT · Section 115J · Section 115JB · book profits · minimum alternate tax · MAT · depreciation arrears · extra shift depreciation · debit to profit and loss account · allowable charge on profits

Also reported as

122 Taxmann 562174 CTR 521

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 147Section 8DSection 92CA(3)Section 195
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 115jb(2)section 115jabook profitssection 115jsection 115jbsection 35disallowance u/s 14adisallowance under section 14asection 115section 80iasection 32section 14a

Judgments citing Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT

A.C.I.T., Cir-II, Kolkata vs. M/S. Philips Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1928/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Srivastava, CIT/ ld.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…ubjected to approval by the shareholders in the Annual general meeting of the company and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd ITA Nos. 1928 & 1815/Kol/2008-C-AM 10 M/s. Philips Electronics India Ltd. reported in 255 ITR 273(SC). This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned CIT(A). 4.4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. The Learned AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.J.Francis…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 880/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Dcit- 7(3), Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Thakkar
Section 115JSection 115jSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 234DSection 80I

…amount of the deferred tax. But for the retrospective amendment, the assessee was not liable to be taxed on account of adjustment of deferred tax. Undeniable, this is the obtaining legal position as per Apollo Tyres Ltd Vs. CIT (2002)(174 CTR (SC) 521; (2002)(255 ITR 273)(SC) and Asst. Cit Vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd (2007)(111 TTJ (Kol) 230. Now, the amendment having come about only by virtue of Finance Act, 2008, obviously there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee, as has been recognized in Priyanka Overseas Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT (2002)(75 TTJ (Delhi) 783) : (2001)(79 ITD 353)(Delhi), in a simila…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1)

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3718/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2003-04 Ay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2008-09 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range 2 Taxation Section, 1St Floor New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhavan Janpath New Delhi Ay: 2003-04 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha Misra, CIT, D.R
Section 37

…Act, as the item in question i.e. loan received from government is not that which is specified in Explanation II to S.115 JB of the Act. In our view reliance placed by the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres reported in 255 ITR 273 (S.C.) applies in this case. In the result ground no.9 of the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2003-04 is allowed. 10. The next issue is disallowance of interest on MTNL Bonds. This ground appears as ground no.5 in the departmental appeal for the A.Y. 2003-04. The addition was made by the A.O. by following the orders of his predecessors. The loan i…

DCIT Circle 2 (1) vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3440/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2003-04 Ay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2008-09 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range 2 Taxation Section, 1St Floor New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhavan Janpath New Delhi Ay: 2003-04 Ay: 2008-09 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha Misra, CIT, D.R
Section 37

…Act, as the item in question i.e. loan received from government is not that which is specified in Explanation II to S.115 JB of the Act. In our view reliance placed by the assessee on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres reported in 255 ITR 273 (S.C.) applies in this case. In the result ground no.9 of the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2003-04 is allowed. 10. The next issue is disallowance of interest on MTNL Bonds. This ground appears as ground no.5 in the departmental appeal for the A.Y. 2003-04. The addition was made by the A.O. by following the orders of his predecessors. The loan i…

DCIT vs. M/S Golden Gate Properties Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1708/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Golden Gate Properties Ltd. No.820, Golden House, 80 Feet Road, 8Th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg 5284 H

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 211(2)Section 211(6)Section 80

…lanation to section 115JB but also the said amount of prior period expenditure has not been debited to Profit & Loss Account even by virtue of notes to accounts. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres vs. CIT (255 ITR 273) and submitted that once accounts of the assessee are certified by the Auditor, as has been prepared in accordance with provisions of Schedule VI of Companies Act then there is no jurisdiction of the AO to go behind net profit shown in Profit & Loss Account except to the extent provided in Explanation to sec. 115JB. The decisions relied on by the…

ITO, Mysore vs. M/S Lab Land Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 879/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 2Section 35

…upheld the assessment in so far as it concerned the disallowance made by the AO for depreciation and unabsorbed R & D expenditure. However, CIT (A) was of the opinion that by virtue of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd v. CIT [255 ITR 274], the profit that was to be reckoned for calculating the MAT was the profit as shown in the P & L account and not profit as shown in the P & L appropriation account. ITA.879 & CO.185/Bang/2015 Page - 5 09. Now before us, Ld. AR in support of his cross objection submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd, placed re…

Sri Hariram Hotels P Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (III)

Appeal is allowed

ITA/53/2009HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 115JSection 260

…ompany are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel strongly places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in APOLLO TYRES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2002) 255 ITR 273. 6. It is vehemently contended that all these statutory obligations that were required to be followed by the assessee in accordance with the Companies Act were followed. The only objection raised by the Income Tax Authorities was that capital gains cannot be directly taken into the account of the capital reserve, first, it has to…

Binary Semantics Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5773/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Binary Semantics Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Plot No. 38, Sector-18, New Delhi Electronic City, Gurgaon (Pan: Aaacb0652N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjay Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Yatendra Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2014 Of Cit(A)-Vi, New Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2011-12, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That On Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Are Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio. 2. The Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By Cit(A) In Book Profit Of The Interest Received On Tax Refund Of Rs. 2,50,737/- Is Incorrect As Interest For The Year 2010-11 (Up To The Date Of Receipt Of Refund) Was Already Included In Income Of The Company. The Addition Is Arbitrary, Unlawful & Against Facts. 3. The Appellant Prays For Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw From Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal At Or Before The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Yatendra Singh, DR
Section 115J

…it & loss account, due to mistake at the lower level of the accounts department, this omission occurred but it was not intentional. However, the assessee requested that following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 273(SC) and the decision of ITAT, Delhi bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Dune Leasing & Financing Ltd., 4 ITR (Trib.) 65 (Delhi.), no change could be made by the Assessing Officer to the book profit computed in accordance with the Companies Act, certified by the Chartered Accountant, passed by the general body of the company and placed before the…

DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4439/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: - 2008-09 Dcit,Central Circle-18 & 19 V. Viraj Profiles Limited Mumbai 10,Imperial Chamber,Wilson Road, Ballard Estate,Mumbai- 400 038 Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1740N Appellant Respondent

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 80G

…ion of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 amounting to Rs.73,07,018/- cannot be increased for the purpose of arriving at the book profit. The assessee company relied upon the following judgments : a) Apollo Tyres Limited v. CIT 255 ITR 273(SC) b) CIT v. HCL Connect Systems and Services Limited 305 ITR 409 (SC) c) ACIT v. Spray Engineering devices Limited (2012) 53 SOT 70 (Chd. Trib.) Page 5 of 58 Viraj Profiles Limited Assessment year: - 2008-09 5. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee company by holding that as observed in Apollo Tyres Limited v. CIT (supra) by Apex co…

B & B Infratech Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazm/S.B & B Infotech Ltd., No.17, 4Th Floor, Shah Sultan Apartment, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore-560 052. … Appellant Pan:Aaacr6295D Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.Ramesha, JCIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)

…he CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and had held that book profits arrived at as per the provisos of Schedule VI of the Companies Act cannot be tinkered with in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (255 ITR 274). 5. Before us, learned AR of the assessee submitted that remission being capital receipt, cannot be considered as income of the assessee even for the purpose of book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Shivalik Venture Pvt. Ltd. vs. DC…

Ing Vysya Bank Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…regards the adoption of profit declared in the profit and loss account prepared under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273, wherein it was held that the assessing officer had no power to rework the book profit if the profits were computed in accordance with Parts II and II of Schedule VI to Companies Act. Accordingly, he referred to his own order dated 15.01.2010 in ITA No. RB-lIl/UDP/CIT(A)MNG/2008-09 in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 1990-91 holding th…

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1366/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1366/2010 Reserved on: 22"'' October, 2013 Date of decision: P'** December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL-MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1979/2010 (Assessment Year 2001-02) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Gan…

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

ITA/1979/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1366/2010 Reserved on: 22"'' October, 2013 Date of decision: P'** December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL-MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1979/2010 (Assessment Year 2001-02) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Gan…

CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd

ITA/2106/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1366/2010 Reserved on: 22"'' October, 2013 Date of decision: P'** December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL-MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1979/2010 (Assessment Year 2001-02) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Gan…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1179/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 1 of 40 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1179/2010 Reserved on: 22nd October, 2013 Date of decision: 9th December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. ITA No. 136…

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

ITA - 1979 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1366/2010 Reserved on: 22"'' October, 2013 Date of decision: P'** December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL-MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1979/2010 (Assessment Year 2001-02) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Gan…

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1366 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1366/2010 Reserved on: 22"'' October, 2013 Date of decision: P'** December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL-MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1979/2010 (Assessment Year 2001-02) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED Respondent Through Mr. S. Gan…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 1 of 40 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1179/2010 Reserved on: 22nd October, 2013 Date of decision: 9th December, 2013 (Assessment Year 2000-01) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II) ..... Appellant Through Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Ms. Mansi Gautam, Advocates. ITA No. 136…

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/S Mbl & Co. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1181/2011HC Delhi17 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal, Mr Ajay Wadhwa and
Section 115JSection 260ASection 87Section 88E

…in the tax payable thereon being lower than the tax as computed under Section 115JB, the tax under the minimum alternative tax scheme as contained in Section 115JB would be payable. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of, Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT:(2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), the Assessing Officer while computing the tax payable under Section 115J of the Act was not required to make any assessment as to the profits of the assessee but was required to accept the audited final accounts and compute the tax at the rate specified. 9. It is also relevant to consider the scheme of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides…

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/S Mbl & Co. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/573/2012HC Delhi17 May 2013
For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal, Mr Ajay Wadhwa and
Section 115JSection 260ASection 87Section 88E

…in the tax payable thereon being lower than the tax as computed under Section 115JB, the tax under the minimum alternative tax scheme as contained in Section 115JB would be payable. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of, Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT:(2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), the Assessing Officer while computing the tax payable under Section 115J of the Act was not required to make any assessment as to the profits of the assessee but was required to accept the audited final accounts and compute the tax at the rate specified. 9. It is also relevant to consider the scheme of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides…