TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001. It provides that, the net profit as shown in the Profit and Loss Account for the relevant previous year must be increased by amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners refers to 2008 (305) Income Tax Reports page 409 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-Tax v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.) and submits that, the provisions of clause (c) of Explanation to Sub-Section (2) of Section 115JA and clause (i) of Explanation 1 to Sub-Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had received consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships were of the view that clause (c) was not at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asset. The first petitioner is obliged to show such provision separately in its accounts. The amendments introduced impact the first petitioner the most. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that, basic reason for introduction of tax on book profit or minimum alternate tax was that, the profit making companies which were paying dividends were not paying tax because of deductions/allowances made under the normal computation provisions of the Act. He refers to Chapter XII-B of the Act and also Section 115JB in this regard. He submits that, Section 115JA was in force up to the assessment year 1998-1999. Tax on book profit was reintroduced as minimum alternate tax by insertion of Section 115JA in Chapter XII-B with effect from a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spective amendment. The amendment is a transgression by the legislature. After HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (supra) the legislature cannot be permitted to nullify and override the effect of such judgment. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners contends that, with the retrospective insertion in 2009, the new and fresh financial burden has arisen retrospectively from 2001. An enforcing fiscal liability is sought to be imposed with retrospective effect which was not envisaged contemporaneously. A tax payer cannot reasonably be expected to absorb the financial burden for the past period when there was no law in place for imposing such burden. The amendment with retrospective effect has to be held to be oppressive and confiscatory.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....legal, invalid and ultra vires the Constitution offending Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 both in its retrospective and prospective operation. Learned Advocate for the revenue submits that, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are covered by the decision of the Hon'ble division Bench of the Delhi High Court reported at 2013 (355) Income Tax Reports page 51 (Delhi) (Whirlpool of India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.). He submits that, the other decisions referred to by the petitioner are not directly on the point. He submits that, there are no reasons as to why the view taken in Whirlpool of India Limited & Anr. (supra) should not be followed. He submits that, the writ petition should be dismissed. The constitutional v....