AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This order will dispose of I. T. A. No. 589 of 2006 (Amtek Auto Ltd. v. CIT) and I. T. A. No. 588 of 2006 (Amtek Auto Ltd. v. CIT) as it has been stated that both the appeals involve a similar question.
These appeals have been preferred by the assessee u/s 260A of the income tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), against the order dated June 9, 2006, of the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi, in I. T. A. No. 5519/5520/Del of 2003 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 raising the following substantial questions of law :
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in view of the judgment rendered in the case of CIT v. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd. [2005] 279 ITR 123 (P&H) when the hon''ble Supreme Court had already affirmed the contrary view in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.,
(ii) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law as well as on facts in recording its conclusion based on irrelevant findings while dismissing the appeal of the appellant herein in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Co. Ltd. [2005] 279 ITR 123 (P&H), which stood overruled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.,
(iii) Whether interest is leviable under sections 234B and 234C of the income tax Act, 1961, in case of an assessment of a company, on the basis of book profits u/s 115JA, even when the entire exercise of computing income u/s 115J is done at the end of the financial year, and the provisions of sections 207 to 210 cannot be made applicable until and unless the accounts are audited and balance-sheet prepared ?
(iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the principle of judicial precedent and judicial discipline ?
The learned counsel for the parties state that the matter is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Rolta India Ltd., ), which has also been followed by this court in I. T. A. Nos. 176 to 181 of 2003 titled Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Steel Steips Leasing Ltd.,
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.