2018 (6) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to conduct the exercise in terms of the Supreme Court order and the Appellate Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate the default on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals). An issue arose on a previous appeal before this Court as to whether the assessee herein was liable to pay advance tax. This Court was of the view that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax. The matter was carried by the Revenue to the Supreme Court. Prior to the Supreme Court taking up the matter, a judgment was rendered in the case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd. (330 ITR 470) where the Supreme Court held that the advance tax was payable by an assessee as the present one. In dealing with the relevant appeal arising out of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said tax liability, there was TDS of Rs. 28,23,475/- and the appellant company paid the Advance Tax of Rs. 2,58,06,000/-, making the total tax payment at Rs. 2,86,29,475/-. Thus, as on 31.03.2006, the appellant company had paid tax amount in excess of total tax liability of the year under appeal and there was no shortfall in the payment of Advance Tax. The appellant company filed the return of income on 13.11.2006, and the income was computed under the normal provisions as well as u/s. 115JB of the Act on the basis of provisions of law existing on the Statute at the relevant time. However, by the time, the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2006-07 were initiated and the assessment was completed, there was an amendment in the provisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it on the basis of existing provisions of the Act and on such income/book profit paid the advance tax. Hence, there was no shortfall in the payment of advance tax on the part of the appellant company on the basis of provisions of the Act existing on the statute during the relevant financial year." On the basis of what is evident from paragraph 5 of the Commissioner's order, it cannot be said that the Commissioner did not undertake the exercise that was required of him by the Supreme Court order of March 26, 2012. What really appears to be the Revenue's case is that in view of the subsequent amendment to Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the deficit on the part of the assessee on account of deferred tax liability should have been ....