TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;] erred in computing the income at INR 1,51,85,43,820 under normal provision of the Act and INR 1,22,88,10,516 under section 115JB of the Act in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act resulting in erroneous tax demand of INR 3,04,61,600. 2. Re; Dismissal of appeal filed against intimation u/s 143(1) on the grounds of doctrine of merger; 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the in appeal filed by the Appellant against the intimation under section 143(1) treating it as infructuous merely on the ground that another appeal had been dismissed by a higher authority. 2.2 The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the submissions made and explanations furnished by the Appellant and without adjudicating the appeal on merits erred to conclude the appeal as redundant 3. Re: Erroneous double disallowances to income determined under normal provision - INR 8.52.48,385 upheld by CIT(Appeals) consequent to treating the appeal as infructuous (a) Disallowance of forex loss on ECB and creditors relating to capital asset- INR 8,44,04,626 3.1 The Ld. AO erred in dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timation order under section 143(1) of the Act merges with assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act 1.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ('CIT(A)')/ Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in appreciating that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act ceased to operate and gets merged into the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. 2.0 Re: Double disallowance of items already considered in the return of income - INR 8,52,48,385 2.1 The CIT (A)/ Ld. AO erred in upholding double/erroneous disallowance of INR 8,52,48,385 made in the intimation order under section 143(1) already considered the return of income ('ROI') in respect of following items: Particulars Amount (In INR) ICDS adjustment on account of forex loss on ECB and creditors relating to capital asset 8,44,04,626 Amortization of premium paid for leasehold land 20,39,318 ICDS adjustment on account of interest relating to capital work in progress for plant expansion 14,22,381 Donation and CSR Expenditure (26,16,852) Interest on TDS (penal in nature) (1,087) Total 8,52,48,386 2.2 The Appellant submits that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act ought to be restricted as per ROI resulting into excess levy of INR 9,58,842 (INR 20,27,591 levied by Ld. AO (-) INR 10,68,749 as per ROI). 6.3 The Appellant submits that the Ld. AO be directed to delete excess interest of INR 9,58,842 charged under section 234C of the Act and recompute its tax payable accordingly." 5. From the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR of the appellant did not press the ground Nos. 1,3 and 5 during the hearing proceedings before the Bench and hence not adjudicated. 6. From the above grounds of appeal, the issues which remain to be adjudicated in both these appeals relate to :- a) Disallowance made due to ICDS adjustment on account of forex loss on ECB and creditors relating to capital asset. b) Amortization of premium paid for leasehold land. c) ICDS adjustment on account of interest relating to cap-in-progress for plant expansion. d) Donation and CSR expenditure and e) Interest on TDS (Penal in nature) 7. As mentioned earlier, the issues to be adjudicated in both the appeals against the orders passed under section 143(1) and 143(3) of the Act are the same, and hence common appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrent tax of Rs. 5,45,86,490/- was debited to the profit and loss account. It was also submitted that the appellant disallowed net amount of Rs. 43,28,29,964/- while calculating the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. But, the grievance of the appellant is that the Intimation Order was processed wherein the disallowance of Rs. 48,74,16,454/- on account of current tax was considered and the deduction on account of deferred tax credit of Rs. 5,45,86,490/- was ignored. The Ld. AR of the appellant argued that an amendment was brought in by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect of 1.4.2001, in clause (viii) of Explanation (1) of section 115JB of the Act which states that the amount of deferred tax, if any, credited to the profit and loss account is required to be reduced from the book profit. In view of the same, the Ld. AR has pointed out that the deduction of Rs. 5,45,86,490/- should be allowed while calculating book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed a paper book which contains a copy of profit and loss account alongwith computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act and demonstrated that this amount of deferred t....