TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court corrects Tribunal error on depreciation set off under Income-tax Act Section 115J, following precedents</h1> <h3>M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Limited (now known as Philips India Limited) Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV & Anr.</h3> M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Limited (now known as Philips India Limited) Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV & Anr. - [2011] 339 ... Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 115J(1A) and Clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115J of the Income-tax Act.2. Determination of the amount of loss or depreciation to be set off against the profit for the relevant previous year.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 115J(1A) and Clause (iv) of Explanation to Section 115J of the Income-tax Act:The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 115J(1A) and Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant, an assessee, filed a return of income and claimed an adjustment under Section 115J to reduce the adjusted book profit to nil. The Assessing Officer did not accept the full adjustment claimed by the assessee, allowing only a partial adjustment. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the full amount of depreciation from the profits for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115J. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, restoring the order of the Assessing Officer.2. Determination of the amount of loss or depreciation to be set off against the profit for the relevant previous year:The core issue was whether the amount of depreciation (Rs. 13,85,66,473/-) being less than the quantum of loss (Rs. 16,48,74,073/-) should be required to be set off in view of Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Section 115J of the Act. The Supreme Court's decisions in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT and Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax were pivotal. The Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. stated that the Assessing Officer must accept the authenticity of the accounts prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and has limited power to make adjustments as provided in the Explanation to Section 115J. The Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd case clarified that the term 'loss' includes depreciation and must be understood in the context of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act.Judgment:The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in law by not appreciating the provisions of law correctly. The court held that the amount of depreciation (Rs. 13,85,66,473/-) should be set off in terms of Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Section 115J of the Act. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the order of the CIT (Appeals) was restored. The appeal was allowed, answering both questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.Conclusion:The judgment emphasized the correct interpretation of Section 115J and the necessity to follow the Supreme Court's rulings on the matter, ensuring that the depreciation amount should be set off against the profit for the relevant previous year as per the statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 