2019 (1) TMI 887

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- being provision for wealth tax, while computing the Book profits u/S. 115JB of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,80,08,397/- being gain on extinguishment of debentures / bonds treated as income u/S 41(1) of the Income Tax Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing commission / surcharge paid to State Oil Marketing Organization ("SOMO"), an Iraqi Government Agency ignoring the Volcker Committee report (India being a member state of the UN) which was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act. Clause (a) thereof reads as under:- "(a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor," Likewise, clause (c) reads as under:- "(c) the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities," In plain terms, clause (a) as noted above refers to amount of income tax paid or payable or the provision made therefor. The legislature has advisedly not included wealth tax in this clause. By no interpretative process, the wealth tax can be included in clause (a). The Revenue, further made a vague attempt to bring this item in clause (c) noted above. Clause (c) would include the amount set aside for provisions made for meeting liabilities other than ascerta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal in its detail discussion came to the conclusion that the liability arising out of the issuance of bonds was not a trading liability and therefore, Section 41(1) of the Act would have no applicability. The Tribunal relied on and referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs. CIT 261 ITR 501. The Tribunal held that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons 222 ITR 344 would not apply. It is against this decision, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not see any error in the view taken by the Tribunal. Sub-section (1) of Section ....