TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. At the outset itself it was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that in the show cause notice issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT dated 30.12.2016 wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT found fault with the order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act on 25.02.2015. However, later, the Ld. Pr. CIT found fault with the assessment order in respect to assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 80IE of the Act, computation of tax liability u/s. 115JB and payment of tax u/s. 115O of the Act and, thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the assessee on 10.01.2017, the Ld. Pr. CIT passed 263 order (similar) for both the years, which reads as under: "Therefore, I hold that the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing] Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he, may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Explanation.1 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purpose of this sub-section,- (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion u/s. 80IE and not 3rd year as claimed by assessee, it has to be said that in AY 2010-11, decided in Appeal No. 393/LD. CIT(A)- 10/CIT-4/2014-15/Kol dated 20th July, 2016, it has been held that the AY 2009-10 would be the first year for deduction for Sec. 80IE. Consequently, the subject AY 2011-12 would be the 3rd year for similar claim, and accordingly, ground no. 6 is held in favour of the assesseeappellant." "(i). On the issue of Ground No. 8, the appellant company has stated that while computing total income learned AO has wrongly allowed deduction u/s. 80IE amounting to Rs. 1,03,59,415/- instead of equal to GTI Rs. 1,17,99,350/- computed by him ignoring the ract that maximum amount eligible for deduction worked out by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see-company. 9. In respect of Sec. 115O, the assessee raised the following ground before the Ld. CIT(A): "10. For that learned AO has raised demand of additional tax u/s. 115O and interest thereon, without passing any order about the same, without giving any reason and without asking any explanation and ignoring binding judgment of honourable Calcutta High Court in case of Jayshree Tea & Inds. Ltd. (Departments SLP has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court) to the effect that in case of tea company, additional tax is to be levied at applicable rate only on 40% of dividend distributed." 10. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue as under: (iii) 1. I have examined the matter of the imposition of additional tax by the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tea company had a net income of Rs. 100, Rs. 40 would be liable to income-tax at the prescribed rate and the assessee would be assessed accordingly. By virtue of sec. 115O if the company declares Rs. 50 for distribution amongst the shareholders it would have a proportionate liability. It is true that in the case the company decides to distribute a part of the income it would be impossible to find out whether that part of the income included in the whole of the agricultural income or a part of it. This exercise now is not at all relevant in view of the provisions of rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules. In such event the company would be charged on Rs. 40 for income tax and on Rs. 50 for additional income tax on proportionate basis (para ....