TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act. The return for the year had been filed. Income-tax had been paid on the book profit calculated under s. 115JB of the Act without increasing the book profit by deferred tax debited to the P and L a/c. The return was processed under s. 143(1) and the income was accepted at the returned income under s. 115JB of the Act at the book profit declared by the assessee. Therefore, no interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the Act had been charged while processing the return. In the regular assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily revised its computation of income on the basis of the newly inserted s. 115JB(2), Expln. 1(h) in the Act, which provided that the book profit be increased by the amount of the defer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has contended that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A); that the assessee had filed the return of income on the basis of bona fide belief that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on account of adjustment of deferred tax, as it was not subject to tax; that it was only later, i.e., by the Finance Act, 2008 that the law got to be amended, whereby deferred tax was included for working the book profit that it was on the basis of the amendment that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed a revised statement of assessable income, in which the deferred tax debit of Rs. 8,49,02,837 was added to the income while working the book profit as per s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position as per Apollo Tyres Ltd. us. CIT (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 521 : (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC) and Asstt. CIT vs. Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. (2007) 111 TTJ (Kol) 230. Now, the amendment having come about only by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008, obviously there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee, as has been recognized in Priyanka Overseas Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ (Del) 783 : (2001) 79 ITD 353 (Del), in a similar fact situation. It was noted therein that from CBDT Order No. F 400/234/95-IT(B), dt. 21st May, 1996, it was clear that the intention of the tax authorities was not to levy interest where any amendment came with retrospective effect. This gets further corroborated from the fact that while processing the retu....