TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee a company engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of moulded luggage (Hard luggage) filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.14,45,540/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act and a Book Profit of Rs.7,40,63,638/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.82,91,400/- under the normal provisions and Book Profit u/s 115 JB at Rs.8,07,03,625/-. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act to disallow the deduction of Rs.5,51,09,808/- on account of the profit eligible u/s 80HHC of the Act for the purpose of determining Book Profit u/s 115....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendment deleting clause (iv) of 115JB Clause (2), has contended that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the reopening proceeding initiated by the AO. Reliance has also been placed by the Ld.Counsel on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 323 ITR 54 (Bom). On the other hand the Ld. DR has stated that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in confirming the reopening of the assessment made by the AO by relying on the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Coca Cola India Inc. Vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 & Punjab State Co-op. Supply Marketing Federation Ltd Vs. JCIT 226 CTR 140 (Punj. & Har.), the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of ALA Firm Vs. CIT 189 ITR 285 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in deleting clause (vi) of 115JB 2 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. 5.2 The perusal of said change in the legal position, the events that have taken place in the assessee's case and reasons recorded by the AO for reopening suggests that the notice dated 15.02.2010 u/s 148 for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 has been issued by the AO is in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma under which the claim of the assessee is not allowable. It is noted that the notice dated 15.02.2010 u/s 148 for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 has been issued by the AO on the basis of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd. dated 07.05.2009. This is an important factor to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suming that the reassessment order has been passed by the AO ignoring the decision of the Honb'e Apex Court as claimed by the assessee, in our view, the same cannot be the basis to hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is vitiated. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that when the matter travelled to the first appellate authority, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 31.10.2011 and at the time of passing the said order by the Ld.CIT(A), the Finance Act, 2011 deleting the provisions of clause (vi) of 115JB 2 of the Act was available since the same has been passed on 08.04.2011. Needless to mention that as per the retrospective amendment, the claim of the assessee is not justified. 5.4 As regards the decision relied by t....