Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2436 2008 SLD 2436 (2008) 304 ITR 156
Madras High Court

P. D. DINAKARAN AND P. P. S., JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2008] 304 ITR 156 (MAD.) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Commissioner of Income-tax v. Faizan Shoes (P.) Ltd. P. D. DINAKARAN AND P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO. 869 OF 2007 JUNE 22, 2007 Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Rectifications of mistake - Apparent from records Where Assessing Officer rectified assessment to compute MAT liability on ground that section 115JA had replaced section 115J, as issue was debatable, rectification was not justified [A.Y. 1998-99]. The assessee computed the income under section 115JA and for the purpose of MAT liability, deduction under section 80HHC was claimed by the assessee based on working as per the Companies Act, 1956 and it also relied on a decision of the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in the case of Sapri Garments, to support its contention. The Assessing Officer found that the decision relied on by the assessee in the case of Sapri Garments was with reference to the provisions of section 115J and since these provisions had been replaced by section 115JA from the assessment year 1998-99, the claim of the assessee based on the said Tribunal's decision interpreting the old provisions, was not correct. Hence, the Assessing Officer worked out the minimum alternate tax by deducting the amount of Rs. 14,13,157 while working out the income under section 115JA. According to the Assessing Officer, there was a mistake in the assessment order and, hence, he issued notice under section 154 and rectified the assessment order. Held that the issue was debatable and also there were diverse opinions on the issue taken by various Appellate Tribunal. Once the issue was a debatable one, the same could not be rectified under section 154. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the appellant. JUDGMENT P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.-This appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A", Chennai in I. T. A. No. 1479/Mds/ 2002 dated February 28, 2006, raising the following substantial questions of law : "1.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rectification of the deduction granted by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492