Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.71 seconds)Dcit vs S.G. Investments And Industries Ltd. on 29 May, 2003
Respectfully following the order of this co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Binani Industries Ltd. (supra) we reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard
and direct the AO to delete the addition. Hence, this ground of assessee's
appeal is allowed.
Section 115J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs Priyanka Carbon & Chemicals Inds Pvt ... on 8 August, 2016
"7.3. It was also mentioned out by the appellant, that the assessment order for
A.Y 2006-07 passed u/s. 143(3) on 31.12.2011, that the tax liability in that
year had been determined under the normal provisions and not under MAT
and viewed from that angle, there is no justification in stating, that any
unabsorbed book depreciation had been actually set off in that year reducing
the amount available for subsequent year. While it is true that tax in AY 2006-
07 had been charged under normal provisions, it is also seen that
computation u/s. 115JB had been made in the order. It is well settled that
computation under normal provisions and MATD provisions go parallel to and
independent of each other. Therefore, the computation u/s. 115JB made
during AY 2006-07 has to be taken into consideration. Further, as per the ratio
of the ruling in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. IN RE (supra), which, it
may be added, has been followed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Carbon & Chemicals India Ltd 196 taxman 302(Ker.)
1