| Case ID |
2c4c3563-dcf2-42d3-9248-73cd1e642fd0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX APPEAL No. 236 OF 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 13, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the only requirement under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is that accounts, specifically the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year, must be prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, and that these accounts need to be certified by chartered accountants. The court held that the Assessing Officer cannot discard these accounts simply because they were not approved at the annual general meeting of the company. This decision reinforces the legal principle that the preparation and certification of accounts according to statutory requirements is paramount, and that the Assessing Officer does not have the authority to disregard them without due cause. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, reaffirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee. |
| Summary |
In the case of TAX APPEAL No. 236 OF 1999, the Gujarat High Court addressed significant questions concerning the interpretation of section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly in relation to zero-tax companies for the assessment year 1989-90. The central issue revolved around whether the profit and loss account prepared by the assessee, which differed from the one approved at the annual general meeting, could be considered valid. The court emphasized that the only necessity for compliance under section 115J was for the accounts to align with the prescribed formats of the Companies Act, 1956, and to be certified by chartered accountants. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and clarified that the Assessing Officer's powers do not extend to disregarding properly prepared and audited accounts based on procedural technicalities. This case is pivotal for businesses navigating tax regulations and highlights the judiciary's commitment to uphold due process in financial reporting. Key terms include taxation, income tax, corporate law, and accounting standards. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Arvind Mills Ltd.,
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.)
|
| Judges |
D.A. Mehta,
S.R. Brahmbhatt
|
| Lawyers |
Mrs. Mauna Bhatt,
Manish R. Bhatt,
Manish J. Shah,
J.P. Shah
|
| Petitioners |
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.)
|
| Respondents |
Arvind Mills Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 2621,
(2009) 314 ITR 251
|
| Other Citations |
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/ 122 Taxman 562 (SC),
Dinesh Mills v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 2627 (Ahd.) of 1992-93],
CIT v. Dinesh Mills Ltd. [2008] 302 ITR 164 (Guj.),
CIT v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. [IT Reference No. 67 of 1999, dated 14-3-2007],
Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 330 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
115J
|