Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Gts E-Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Gts E-Services Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer-15(1)(4) 103, A-Wing Kensinton Room No.15B, Ground Floor बनाम/ Hiranandani Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Hiranandani Builder Sez Mumbai-400 020. Powai, Mumbai-400 076. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-8662-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Nilesh Patel- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Agarwal – Addl. Cit-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/06/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…pon the following decisions to contend that except for adjustments provided in Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act, no other adjustment can be made to book profits under Section 115JB of the Act :- i. Apollo Tyres: 255 ITR 273(SC) ii. Malayalam Manorma: 300 ITR 251(SC), iii. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd., 305 ITR 409 (SC) and iv. DCIT v. Bisleri Sales Ltd.: 151 TTJ 285 (Mum)(ITAT) 35. The Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand supported the order of the AO on the strength of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rain Commodities v. DCIT: (2010) 40 SOT 265. 36. We have considered the…

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gran Electronics P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Acit 3(1)(2) M/S. Gran Electronics R.No 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, C-171, Mittal Court, V. Mumbai-400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach0383A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By : Shri. Mayank Chauhan & Shri. Bhupendra Karkhanis सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3518/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 27.01.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.3518/Mum/2017

…) or any other clause to that section. Hence, the same cannot be added for computing the book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB. We also rely upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd., V. CIT, 255 ITR 273 & Malayala Manorama Co Ltd. 300 ITR 251 affirming it , as per which no adjustment other than those specifically given in section can be made while working out "book profit" Under the above circumstances, it is submitted that provision for warranty can not be added while computing book profit under section 1153B of the Act also........” 4. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee…

M/S. Soex in vs. T & Fin. Pvt.Ltd.(Now Known As Sopariwala Exports P.Ltd.), Mumbai

Accordingly, the cross objection raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04

…In view of the above, we follow our decision for the AY 2003-04 mentioned at para 17. 24. In the cross objection, the assessee has referred to the decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and Malayalam Manorama vs. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 251 (SC) stating that the Assessing Officer while computing the income u/s 115J has only the power of examining whether the books of accounts are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter has the limited power of making increases and r…

Shloka Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…ting the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) and the decision rendered in the case of Malayala Manorama Ltd (300 ITR 251) to contend that the accounts adopted in the Annual General Meeting should not be disturbed by the AO. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view in the case of Dynamic Orthopaedic (190 Taxman 288)(SC) that the decision taken in the case of Malayala Manorama (supra) was incorrectly decided and hence the matter w…

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

…on in the section, that the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court has admitted substantial question of law in case of the assessee against the quantum order passed by the tribunal, that the issue was debatable. He relied upon the cases of Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd. (300 ITR 251) Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273),Nico Extrusion Ltd. (ITA/3662/Mum/2015 AY. 2009-10, dated 08/07/2016). The Departmental Representative(DR) supported the order of the CIT and heavily relied upon the judgement of 3880/M/14-NTPC the honorable Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Ashok Logani (ITA No. 553 of 2010, dated 11/05/2011). 4.We have…

Rahil Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…ting the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 4. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Apollo Tyres Ltd (255 ITR 273) and the decision rendered in the case of Malayala Manorama Ltd (300 ITR 251) to contend that the accounts adopted in the Annual General Meeting should not be 3 M/s. Rahil Impex Pvt. Ltd. disturbed by the AO. However, the Ld CIT(A) held that Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view in the case of Dynamic Orthopaedic (190 Taxman 288)(SC) that the decision taken in the case of Malayala Manorama (supra) was incorrectly…