TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the Assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee in view of Explanation-3 to section 115JB without appreciating that the amendment is applicable only with effect from 01.04.2013 relevant Assessment Year 2013-14? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in accepting the additional ground raised regarding applicability of section 115JB without appreciating that the assessee has neither raised the issue before the Assessing officer or before the Appellate Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.10.2007. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2008 made additions under the normal provisions of the Act viz., prior period expenditure, capital expenditure and disallowance of set off, brought forward loss as the same was set off in earlier years. However, deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was increased to the extent of disallowance. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the provision for leave encashment and pension for the purposes of computation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 30.11.2011 after obtaining re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). It is further submitted that the tribunal grossly erred in accepting the claim of the assessee for a sum of Rs. 82,43,612/- in respect of expenses claimed by the assessee for payment to its employees and the agencies, which were crystallized. It is submitted that the finding in this regard recorded by the tribunal is perverse. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the tribunal on substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 'ROTORK CONTROLS INIDA (P.) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI', (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim with regard to the expenditure of Rs. 2,07,60,000/- and a s....