D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Alwar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 513/2008 Indian Shaving Product Ltd. Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar now known as Gillette India Limited through its Managing Director Mr. Zubair Ahmed S/o Mr. F Ahmed, aged about__ years, Vith Floor, Global Business Park-Tower ‘A’ Mehrauli- Gurgoan Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana). ----Appellant Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Alwar. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) :Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar. For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri J. 10/01/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal haspartly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed theappeal of the department. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 26.11.2008, has framed the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether there is no taxable incomeand when a person is assessed pursuant todeeming provisions based on book profitswhich are determined after the close of theyear, whether such person can beconsidered to have defaulted in makingpayment of advance tax before close of theyear? 2.Whether interest u/s 234B and 234C ofthe Act can be charged when there is notaxable income as per the computationprovisions and a person is chargeable onlyon account of special provisions ofminimum alternative tax based on bookdetermined after close of the year?.” 3.Counsel for the appellant has contended that the matter wasadmitted on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in thecase of CIT vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., reported in (2006) 205 CTR(SC) Page 122, but in view of the subsequent decision of theSupreme Court in the case of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rolta India Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 0470, the issues are required to be answered in favour of the department and againstthe assessee. 4.The issues are answered in favour of the department andagainst the assessee. 5.The appeal is dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Asheesh kr.Yadav/83