<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (12) TMI 476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254132</link>
    <description>For assessment year 2005-06, income relatable to section 10B could be adjusted against book profit under section 115JB where the amount was credited to the profit and loss account. The decisive factor was the statutory wording linking the MAT adjustment to credit in the profit and loss account, not whether the assessee had also claimed the deduction in the normal computation of income. On the undisputed facts, the assessee had made the relevant credit and claimed the adjustment consistently with the then-existing provision, so the lower authorities&#039; view was not shown to be perverse or based on misreading. The adjustment was therefore permissible and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:38:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254132</link>
      <description>For assessment year 2005-06, income relatable to section 10B could be adjusted against book profit under section 115JB where the amount was credited to the profit and loss account. The decisive factor was the statutory wording linking the MAT adjustment to credit in the profit and loss account, not whether the assessee had also claimed the deduction in the normal computation of income. On the undisputed facts, the assessee had made the relevant credit and claimed the adjustment consistently with the then-existing provision, so the lower authorities&#039; view was not shown to be perverse or based on misreading. The adjustment was therefore permissible and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>