ITO v. Frigsales (India) Ltd.

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

…Act shall apply” does not mean that the exemption provisions of s. 47(iv) can be read into s. 115JB. This only means that while the computation has to be as per s. 115JB, anything over and above that will be subject to other provisions of the Act. Frig Sales 4 SOT 376 (Mum) overruled); (v) Accordingly, in the absence of any provision for exclusion of exempted capital gain in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB, the assessee is not entitled to the exclusion claimed.” 21. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of Special Bench in case of Rain Commodities (supra) and there i…

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Assessee) .. (Revenue/Department) Addl. Cit, Range-9, New Delhi Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. D-2, 6Th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, New Delhi-110017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant) Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata Vs. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. 86C, Vishwakarma, Topsia Road(South), Kolkata-700046. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs1425L (Respondent) .. (Appellant)

…Act shall apply” does not mean that the exemption provisions of s. 47(iv) can be read into s. 115JB. This only means that while the computation has to be as per s. 115JB, anything over and above that will be subject to other provisions of the Act. Frig Sales 4 SOT 376 (Mum) overruled); (v) Accordingly, in the absence of any provision for exclusion of exempted capital gain in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB, the assessee is not entitled to the exclusion claimed.” 21. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of Special Bench in case of Rain Commodities (supra) and there i…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

…y the companies during the relevant assessment years and not on artificial income which has not accrued to the companies but has been credited to the profit and loss account. (iii) Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO -vs.- Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (Mum) wherein it was held that a receipt which is not in the nature of income cannot be taxed as income under section 115JA. When the accounts are prepared in accordance with Part-Il and Part-Ill of Sch. VI of the Companies Act while making adjustments as per the provisions of s.115JA to compute book profits, the amounts which are not taxable or ex…

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 147&109 & C.O Nos.35 & 36/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Mcnally Bharat Engineering Ltd. M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co. Company Limited, 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm9443R (Appellant) .. (Respondent/Cross-Objector)

…y the companies during the relevant assessment years and not on artificial income which has not accrued to the companies but has been credited to the profit and loss account. (iii) Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO -vs.- Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (Mum) wherein it was held that a receipt which is not in the nature of income cannot be taxed as income under section 115JA. When the accounts are prepared in accordance with Part-Il and Part-Ill of Sch. VI of the Companies Act while making adjustments as per the provisions of s.115JA to compute book profits, the amounts which are not taxable or ex…

Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

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

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

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

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…sales tax incentive was required to be excluded while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO –vs.- Frigsales (India) Limited [4 SOT 376], wherein it was held that the amounts which are not taxable in the normal computation cannot be included while computing book profit because such amounts did not really reflect a receipt in the nature of income and cannot form part of the book profit. 11 A.Y. 2011-2012 M/s. Emami Biotech Limited 14. The entire submissions made on behalf of the…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Tata Metaliks Limited, Kolkata

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

Tata Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…as the case may be. We do not find any difference between section 115J or 115JA or 115JB in so far as method of computation of book profit as provided in the Explanation appended thereto is concerned. The Tribunal in the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (MUM) has not applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562. But the fact remains that the propositions laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) have been reiterated and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

…the companies during the relevant assessment years and not on artificial income which has not accrued to the companies but has been credited to the profit and loss account. (iii) Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO -vs.- Frigsales (India) Ltd. (2005) 4 SOT 376 (Mum) wherein it was held that a receipt which is not in the nature of income cannot be taxed as income under section 115JA. When the accounts are prepared in accordance with Part-Il and Part-Ill of Sch. VI of the Companies Act while making adjustments as per the provisions of s.115JA to compute book profits, the amounts which are not taxable or ex…

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gloster Jute Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.95/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2007-08

…nd loss account, set out in the explanation below Sec.115JB(2) of the Act. 36. On appeal by the assessee the CIT(A) held as follows :- “In this regard the Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in :the case of Frigsales (India) Ltd. 4 SOT 376 (Mum) wherein it had been held that capital gain on sale of depreciable asset exempt u/s 50 cannot be taxed as income under the provisions of section 115JA. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of Suraj Jewellary 21 SOT 79 (Mum.) wherein it was held that even where for computing MAT profit u/s 115JB of the Act, the business profit…