JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by K. S. Jhaveri J.-While admitting appeal on December 4, 2000, following substantial question of law was formulated for our consideration: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs. 96,67,300 made by Assessing Officer to book profit on account of additional depreciation debited in accounts for earlier years because of change in method of providing depreciation retrospectively?" Briefly stated, facts are that assessee-company is engaged in business of manufacture of filaments. assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 1989-90 declaring total income at Rs. 6,69,000. However, after assessment scrutiny, total taxable income was determined at Rs. 35,69,270. On appeal, Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) deleted addition of book profit and directed Assessing Officer to recompute book profit and thereby, allowed appeal in part. order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was challenged before Appellate Tribunal. Vide order dated June 3, 2000, Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal filed by Revenue in part. Being aggrieved by same, present appeal has been preferred. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. Identical issue came up for our consideration in Tax Appeal No. 390 of 1999, which came to be disposed of, vide judgment and order dated April 7, 2011. (Deputy CIT (Asstt.) v. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Guj. Ltd. [2012] 347 ITR 394 (Guj)) For ready reference, said judgment is reproduced hereunder (pages 396 to 401): "In this appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), appellant-Revenue has challenged order dated May 7, 1999, made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' in I. T. A. No.4681/Ahd/1992 for assessment year 1989-90. At time of admitting appeal, this court had, by order dated September 4, 2000, formulated following two substantial questions of law: '1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs. 20,77,946 made by Assessing Officer to book profit on account of additional depreciation debited in accounts for earlier years because of change in method of providing depreciation retrospectively? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing not to charge interest under section 234B and section 234C of Act since total income was determined under section 115J of Act?' assessment year is 1989-90 and relevant accounting period is year ended on March 31, 1989 (15 months). Assessing Officer computed total income of assessee-company under section 143(3) of Act at Rs. 2,92,880 after adjusting brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, vide assessment order dated February 24, 1992. Assessing Officer separately computed taxable profit of company under section 115J of Act according to which, chargeable profit under section 115J came to Rs. 11,11,550. Assessing Officer negatived assessee's claim for additional provision of depreciation to extent of Rs. 20,77,946. According to assessee, it had changed method of providing depreciation from straight line method (SLM) to written down value (WDV) method which has resulted in short fall in depreciation provided as per old method as compared to new method and shortfall was charged to profit and loss account for current assessment year 1989-90. Assessing Officer disallowed claim of assessee on ground that section 205 of Companies Act, 1956, read with section 35D of said Act does not entitle assessee to claim depreciation for earlier years placing reliance upon decision of Supreme Court in case of McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC). Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld contention of assessee and directed Assessing Officer to recompute book profit without disallowing additional claim for depreciation. Commissioner (Appeals) found that change in method adopted by assessee was one which was permitted by Accounting Standards prescribed and was not barred by provisions of Companies Act or by provisions of section 115J of Act. He, accordingly, deleted addition made by Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, Revenue carried matter in appeal before Tribunal but did not succeed. Heard Mr. K. M. Parikh, learned standing counsel for appellant and Mr. M. J. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-assessee. Mr. M. J. Shah, learned advocate for respondent-assessee drew attention of court to impugned order of Tribunal. It was pointed out that before Tribunal, on behalf of assessee, decision of Tribunal in case of Deputy CIT (Assessment) v. Rubamin (P) Ltd. in I. T. A. No. 1544/Ahd/93 dated August 12, 1998, had been relied upon wherein identical issue had been decided in favour of assessee. It was submitted that decision of Tribunal in aforesaid case was carried in appeal before this court and that this court held in favour of assessee by placing reliance upon decision of apex court in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC). It was, accordingly, submitted that controversy involved in present case stands concluded by aforesaid decisions of this High Court as well as Supreme Court. facts are not in dispute. In present case, Assessing Officer had made addition in question on ground that assessee could not claim depreciation which was not provided for in books of account of assessee for earlier years. However, as noticed hereinabove, assessee in present case had changed method of providing depreciation from straight line method to written down value method and resultant shortfall in depreciation was charged to profit and loss account for current year. Both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal have taken note of fact that assessee's change of method in accounting from straight line method to written down value method was in accordance with accounting standards issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Tribunal, accordingly, held that disallowance made by Assessing Officer was not warranted by provisions of Companies Act or by provisions of section 115J of Act as there was no bar for change in method of accounting standards recognised for purpose of Companies Act. It is not in dispute that short fall in depreciation, was charged to profit and loss account, which was computed in accordance with provisions of Companies Act. In circumstances, present case would stand squarely covered by decision of Supreme Court in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC), wherein court has held that Assessing Officer, while computing income under section 115J, has only power of examining whether books of account are certified by authorities under Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with Companies Act. Assessing Officer, thereafter, has limited power to make increases and reductions as provided for in Explanation to said section. To put it differently, Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction to go behind net profits shown in profit and loss account except to extent provided in Explanation to section 115J. court held that sub- section (1A) of section 115J does not empower Assessing Officer to embark upon fresh enquiry in regard to entries made in books of account of company. said subsection, as matter of fact, mandates company to maintain its accounts in accordance with requirements of Companies Act which mandate is bodily lifted from Companies Act into Income-tax Act for limited purpose of making said accounts so maintained as basis for computing company's income for levy of income-tax. court also held that there cannot be two incomes, one for purpose of Companies Act and another for purpose of income-tax maintained under same Act. This court, in case of CIT v. Rubamin (P.) Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 18 (Guj) was called upon to decide question as to whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding deletion of addition of Rs. 61,602 being difference in amount of depreciation as result of changing method of providing amount of depreciation as result of changing method of providing depreciation from straight line method to written down value method. court followed decision of apex court in case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and held in favour of assessee. Thus, it is apparent that controversy involved in case of CIT v. Rubamin (P.) Ltd. (supra) is similar to controversy involved in present case and as such same stands concluded in favour of assessee by decision rendered in said case. In circumstances, for reasons stated in decision of this court in case of CIT v. Rubamin (P.) Ltd. (supra), question is answered in affirmative, that is, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding deletion of addition of Rs. 20,77,946 made by Assessing Officer to book profit on account of additional depreciation debited in books for earlier years because of change in method of providing depreciation retrospectively. In so far as second question which relates to charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is concerned, Mr. M. J. Shah, learned advocate for respondent invited attention to decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 434 (SC), wherein Supreme Court has confirmed decision of Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 519 (Karn). It was submitted that controversy involved in present case stands concluded by aforesaid decision in favour of assessee. Karnataka High Court in said decision which came to be affirmed by Supreme Court held thus (page 526 of 243 ITR): 'Section 234B casts liability for payment of interest for default in payment of advance tax if assessee is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 and has failed to pay such tax or, where advance tax paid by such assessee under provisions of section 210 is less than 90 per cent. of assessed tax, then he is liable to pay simple interest at rate of two per cent. for every month to date of determination of total income under section 143(1) and, where regular assessment is made, to date of such regular assessment on amount equal to assessed tax or, as case may be, on amount by which advance tax paid has fallen short of assessed tax. Under Explanation, "assessed tax" means tax on total income as declared in return or tax on total income determined under section 143(1) or on regular assessment, as reduced by amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVII. Under section 234C also, if there is liability to pay advance tax under section 208 and if there is failure to pay such tax or if it is not paid in instalments prescribed in section, then liability for interest arises. Section 208 contemplates liability to pay advance tax in every case where amount of such tax payable by assessee during that year, as computed in accordance with provisions of this Chapter is Rs. 1,500 or more. computation of advance tax is provided under section 209. Under section 209(1)(a), firstly, estimate of current income is to be made. If there is no current income there is no liability for making estimate. It is not case where Incometax Officer has passed order for payment of advance tax. Under section 115J, where total income of company is less than 30 per cent. of its book profit, total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for relevant previous year shall be deemed to be amount equal to 30 per cent. of such book profit. It is thus, by way of deeming fiction that this income has been considered to be deemed income. profit and loss account has to be prepared in accordance with provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to Companies Act. In Explanation under section 115J(1A) it is provided that for purposes of this section "book profit" means net profit as shown in profit and loss account for relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (1A) as increased by various amounts given in section. Thus, for purpose of assessing tax under section 115J, firstly, profit as computed under Incometax Act has to be prepared and, thereafter, book profit as contemplated by provisions of section 115J are to be determined and then tax is to be levied. liability of assessee for payment of tax under section 115J arises if total income as computed under provisions of Act is less than 30 per cent. of its book profits. This exercise for determining total income in accordance with provisions of Act and that of book profit can be only after end of relevant assessment year. It is only deemed income for which provisions of section 115J have been incorporated. When deeming fiction is brought under statute it is to be carried to its logical conclusion but without creating further deeming fiction so as to include other provisions of Act which are not specifically made applicable. Since entire exercise of computing income or that of book profit could be only at end of financial year, provisions of section 207, 208, 209 or 210 cannot be made applicable, until and unless accounts are audited and balance-sheet is prepared even assessee may not know whether provision of section 115J would be applicable or not. liability would be after book profits are determined in accordance with Companies Act. words "for purposes of this section" in Explanation to section 115J(1A) are relevant and cannot be construed to extend beyond computation of liability of tax. Accordingly, we are of view that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in directing to charge interest under sections 234B and 234C of Income-tax Act. This question No. 2 is, therefore, answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue.' Thus, it is apparent that controversy which is raised by virtue of second question, stands concluded by aforesaid decision. In circumstances, it is not necessary to set out facts and contentions in detail. Following decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Kwality Biscuits Ltd. v. CIT (supra) as affirmed by Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (supra), question is answered in affirmative, that is, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing not to charge interest under section 234B and section 234C of Act since total income was determined under section 115J of Act. In light of aforesaid discussion, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs." facts in abovereferred tax appeal and in this appeal are identical and, therefore, we are following decision rendered in aforesaid tax appeal and do not deem it necessary to give elaborate reasons for disposing of this appeal. In view of aforesaid, question raised in this appeal is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. *** Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat Filaments Ltd