271[1][c] vs 115JB

[CA.BHUPENDRASHAH]

no penalty when only MAT was payable u/s 115JB after additions. ITA 6940/6941/M/2008 D BENCH

[PANKAJ JAIN]

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for sharing, but can we get the citation or the decision.

Best Regards,

[pawansingla]

CIT v. Nalwa Investmetn Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 233 (Del).
Further there is direct judgement of delhi tribunal and also Ahmedabd ITAT following it. But in these cases there was no variation in tax payable u/s 115JB though additions under normal provisions were made in scrutiny assessment.

[pawansingla]

With due respect to all the appellate authorities and Hon,ble Judges , i do not fully agree with the ratio of this judgement. There can be two situations:
1. The assessee files return of income declaring certain positive income for ex. Rs. 10 lakhs , however his income under section 115JB is Rs. 100 lakhs. So , he paid tax under 115JB. During assessment certan additons are made to the noraml income and it is assessed to Rs. 20 Lakhs u/s 143(3). However there is no change in income u/s 115JB. In this situation ratio of judgements is correct. Pelaty has been rightly delted.
2. The assessee files return of income declaring Nil income after setting off of brought forward say 10 lakhs against the current year income.Further assessee still has balance loss of Rs. 15 lakhs to be carried forward. The income of assessee under sec.115JB is Rs. 100lakhs. During assessment additions of Rs. 10 lakhs is made which is adjusted agianst the balance loss of Rs. 15 lakhs. Assessee is now allowed to carry forward business loss of Rs. 05 lakhs. Ultimately tax is payable u/s 115JB on Rs. 100lakhs. According to me in this situation , following the ratio of Apex Court judgement is case of Gold Coin is leviabale.
Comments from learned members are highly welcome.