AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in brief. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) services to Health care industry. It is registered with SEEPZ and located in Special Economic Zone under the Export oriented unit scheme approved by Central Government. It originally filed its return of income on 30-09-2008 declaring a loss of Rs. 19,876/-. Consequent to demerger order approved by the High Court, the BPO division of the associate concern Gebbs Technologies Ltd was merged with the Appellant Company w.e.f. 1.4.2007. Therefore, the assessee filed a revised return of income (post merger) on 17.03.2009. In the revised return of income, the assessee declared its Total income at NIL after claiming deduction of Rs. 329.65 lakhs u/s 10B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sec. 115JB(6) is applicable to the assessee, since its unit is located in Special Economic Zone. As per sec. 115JB(6), there is no MAT liability for profits arising from unit carrying on business in Special Economic Zone. The assessing officer noticed that the assessee itself has accepted its liability under MAT provisions. Accordingly he took the view that the action of the assessee admitting the liability under MAT does not constitute mistake apparent from record. He also took the view that the new claim could be made only by filing revised return of income as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323). Accordingly he rejected the petition filed by the assessee. 6. The Ld CIT(A) also rejected t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome under normal provisions of the Act. However, it has filed rectification petition in connection with Book Profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act. 8. He submitted that the assessee has, inadvertently, accepted the liability u/s 115JB of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that the Circular No.14 (XL-35) of 1955 requires the AO to draw the attention of the assessee to the reliefs available to the assessees. He submitted that the above said circular was applied in the case of Chokshi Metal Refinery Vs. CIT (1977)(107 ITR 63)(Guj). 9. The Ld A.R further submitted that there is no estoppel against law and hence the tax authorities should not have rejected the rectification petition of the assessee on the reasonin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y claimed deduction u/s 115JB(6) by way of a note. Later it withdrew the claim through a letter and again sought the deduction in the petition. Hence it cannot be considered as a fresh deduction claimed so as to attract the decision rendered in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra). 11. He further submitted that the tax collected against the authority of law can be challenged at any stage and for this proposition; the ld A.R took support of decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nirmala L Mehta Vs. A Balasubramaniam, CIT (269 ITR 1). 12. On the contrary, the ld D.R strongly supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been explained very well by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Steelfab Engineering Corpn (India) Vs. ACIT (supra). 15. We notice that the CBDT, in its circular referred supra, has cast a duty on the assessing officer to make the assessees about the reliefs available to them. The said circular was also accepted in the case of Chokshi Metal Refinery (supra) by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Undisputedly, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 115JB(6) of the Act, which the assessing officer has failed to bring to the notice of the assessee. When the assessee has realised its mistake, it has filed the impugned rectification petition. Thus, the error pointed by the assessee is very much glaring and obvious. Hence the same requires rect....