Revenue appeal allowed due to failure to add back provision for diminution in investment value in previous year The Revenue appealed against the reduction of net profit by &8377;1,30,53,000 for diminution in the value of investment for book profit u/s 115JB. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Revenue appeal allowed due to failure to add back provision for diminution in investment value in previous year
The Revenue appealed against the reduction of net profit by &8377;1,30,53,000 for diminution in the value of investment for book profit u/s 115JB. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the addition, but the Tribunal found that the provision for diminution in the value of investment was not added back in a previous assessment year, leading to the appeal being allowed, and the original order was upheld.
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against reduction of net profit for diminution in value of investment for book profit u/s 115JB for assessment year 2006-07.
Summary: 1. The Revenue appealed against the reduction of net profit by &8377; 1,30,53,000/- for diminution in the value of investment for book profit u/s 115JB. 2. The AO noticed the discrepancy in the computation of income under normal provision and book profit u/s 115JB due to the exclusion of the exceptional item related to diminution in value of investment. 3. The assessee explained that the provision for diminution in the value of investment was rightly reduced in the computation of Book Profit as per the Explanation u/s 115JB(2). 4. The AO added back the amount of &8377; 1,30,53,000/- in the book profit citing the retrospective amendment in the Finance Act, 2009 disallowing such deductions. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the addition, stating that the amount written back was part of the provision for which no deduction was allowed earlier, hence should not be included in book profit. 6. The Revenue contended that the provision for diminution in the value of investment was not added back under section 115JB, leading to an incorrect computation of book profit. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee argued that the amount written back was out of the provision created earlier, which was not claimed as a deduction in the book profit for the relevant year. 8. The Tribunal observed that the provision for diminution in the value of investment was not added back in the assessment year 2001-02, and the Ld. CIT(A)'s direction was based on incorrect facts, thus setting aside the order and restoring that of the AO. 9. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the original order was upheld.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
