AGILA SPECIALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW MERGED WITH MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a provision with a fiction (Section 14A) cannot be superimposed on another provision with a fiction (Section 115JB). The Explanation to Section 115JB does not refer to disallowances under Section 14A for computing book profit.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2012-13 showed NIL income under normal provisions and a significant amount under MAT. The AO made additions under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(va). The Pr. CIT invoked Section 263, stating the Section 14A disallowance was not added back to book profit for MAT computation.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 14A needs to be added back to book profit for MAT computation under Section 115JB. Whether the Pr. CIT correctly invoked Section 263.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT657 citing122 Taxmann 562 · 2002 · SC · Read judgment
- Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT25 citing37 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · ITAT
- Beach Minerals Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT21 citing64 Taxmann.com 218 · 2015
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.987/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Agila Specialities Private Vs. ACIT, Limited, Circle-16(2), (Now merged with Mylan 2nd Floor, B-Block, Laboratories Limited) Income Tax Towers, Plot No. 564/A/22, Road Masabtank, No. 92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 004. Hyderabad, Telangana-34. PAN: AAACQ 1091 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri Sharath Rao Revenue by: Smt. Nivedita Biswas-DR Date of hearing: 03/09/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/10/2019 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad dated 27/02/2018 passed U/s. 263 of the Act for the Asst. Year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by invoking his powers U/s. section 263 of the Act on the ground that the order passed
by the Ld. AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because, disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act was not added back to the book profit while computing the MAT U/s. 115JB of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a Private Limited Company now merged with M/s. Mylan Laboratories Limited. The assessee-company was engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing and supply of pharmaceuticals filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 30/11/2012 admitting NIL income under normal provisions and Rs. 63,58,53,266/- under the MAT provisions. Initially, the return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 31/3/2016 wherein the Ld. AO made addition towards disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 12,91,23,973/- and U/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act for Rs. 6,18,366/-. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT on perusing the order of the Ld. AO observed that the disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act was not added back to the income of the assessee while computing the profit under MAT provisions. Therefore, he invoked the provisions U/s. 263 of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment based on his observation.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted before us that while computing the profit under MAT provisions of the Act which is a provision with
fiction, another provision with fiction cannot be superimposed. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Beach Minerals Company (P) Ltd vs. ACIT reported in [2015] 64 taxmann.com 218 (Chennai – Trib.) order dated 06th August, 2015 wherein similar view was taken on the issue. The ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld. AR however argued in support of the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR because it is a well settled principle that while interpreting fiscal statutes a provision with fiction cannot be superimposed on another provision with fiction. Further, as pointed out by the Ld. AR, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate Bench of the Chennai Tribunal following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“8.1.1 The Ld. Assessing Officer while computing the tax as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act made additions to the book profit with respect to the disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act read with Rules-8D of the Income Tax Rules. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) citing the provisions of clause (f) of Explanation-1 to Section-115JB, confirmed the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is reproduced herein below for reference:— "10.2 I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer has taxed the income U/s. 115JB since the tax on book profits is more than the tax under normal computation. While
doing so, she made disallowance of the amount relatable to exempt income on the basis of the amount worked out U/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D under normal computation. The provisions of clause (f) of Explanation- 1 to s. 115JB makes it abundantly clear that the amount of expenditure 'relatable to' any exempt income, other than s.10(38), is liable to be added back to the amount of net profit as shown in the P&L A/c. Reliance is placed on the latest decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dabur India Ltd., 37 taxmann.com 289. Reliance is also placed on the latest decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of RBK Share Broking P. Ltd. in ITA No. 6678 & 7546/Mum/2011 dated 24.7.2013 wherein it was held that the amount disallowable U/s. 14A can be added back while computing book profit under Explanation-1 to s. 115JB(para 6). Respectfully following the above decisions, I uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is dismissed." However, on perusing the Explanation-1(f) of Section-115JB(2) of the Act, we do not find merit in the contention of the Ld. CIT (A). The relevant provision of the Act is extracted herein below for reference:— "Section. 115JB Explanation-[1] - For the purposes of this section, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section(2), as increased by — (a) To (e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which [Section-10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof] or section 11 or section 12 apply; (g) To (j) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." From the above it is apparent that the aforesaid provision of the Act does not refer to any disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act while arriving at the Book Profit for the purpose of Section-115JB(2) of the Act. Further Section 14A of the Act is a provision with fiction disallowing the deemed expenditure attributable to exempt income viz., dividend income U/s. 10 of the Act and Section 115JB of the Act is also a provision with fiction for payment of tax in respect of deemed income. Therefore while computing the profit for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act another provision with fiction cannot be superimposed. Hence the question of increasing the 'Book Profit' due to the disallowance U/s. 14A of the Act will not arise. However, in the instant case of the assessee, since we have already deleted the addition made U/s. 14A, increasing the book profit will not arise. Further the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the assessee in the case Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562 is also squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. The gist of the same is reproduced herein below for reference:— "The Assessing Officer, while computing the book profits of a company under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has only the power of examining whether the books of account are certified by the authorities under the Companies Act as having been properly maintained in accordance with the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer, thereafter,
has the limited power of making increases and reductions as provided for in the Explanation to section 115J . The Assessing Officer does not have the jurisdiction to go behind the net profits shown in the profit and loss account except to the extent provided in the Explanation. The use of the words "in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act" in section 115J was made for the limited purpose of empowering the Assessing Officer to rely upon the authentic statement of accounts of the company. While so looking into the accounts of the company, the Assessing Officer has to accept the authenticity of the accounts with reference to the provisions of the Companies Act, which obligate the company to maintain its accounts in a manner provided by that Act and the same to be scrutinised and certified by statutory auditors and approved by the company in general meeting and thereafter to be filed before the Registrar of Companies who has a statutory obligation also to examine and be satisfied that the accounts of the company are maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act. Sub-section (1A) of section 115J does not empower the Assessing Officer to embark upon a fresh enquiry in regard to the entries made in the books of account of the company." From the above decision it is clear that while computing the "Book Profit" of the company under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act; any disallowance made under the normal provisions of the Act also cannot be given effect to for arriving at the "Book Profit" for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour.”
Since, it is already decided by the Chennai and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that disallowance made U/s. 14A of the Act while computing the profit under the normal provisions of the Act, need not be added back to the book profit while computing MAT U/s. 115JB of the Act, we do not find the order of the Ld. AO to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the powers invoked by the Ld. Pr. CIT U/s. 263 of the Act is erroneous. Hence, we hereby quash the order passed by the Ld.Pr. CIT U/s.263 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open Court on 30th October, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated:30th October, 2019 OKK Copy to:- 1) Agila Specialities Private Limited, (Now merged with Mylan Laboratories Limited) Plot No. 564/A/22, Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-34. 2) ACIT, Circle-16(2), 2nd Floor, B-Block, Income Tax Towers, Masabtank, Hyderabad – 004 3) The Addl CIT, Range-16, Hyderabad 4) The Pr. CIT-4, Hyderabad 5) The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6) Guard File
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S. Saint Gobain Glass India Private… vs DCIT, ChennaiChennai13 Jul 2016Partly Allowed
Also relies on Beach Minerals Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is not applicable for AY 2007-08 and directed the AO to disallow 5% of dividend income under Section 14A for normal computation. It further held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot b...
- Tvs Automobile Solutions Private Limited… vs ITO Corporate Ward 3, MaduraiChennai24 Sept 2019Allowed
Also relies on Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. It also held that disallowances under Section...
- DCIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai vs Viraj Profiles Ltd, MumbaiMumbai21 Oct 2015Allowed
Also relies on Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that while Section 14A mandates disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income, Section 115JB(2) requires such expenditure to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account. The CIT(A) had correctly de...
- M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore9 Feb 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Beach Minerals Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultim...
- JCIT (OSD) Ltu 2, Chennai vs Ti Financial Holdings Limited, ChennaiChennai1 Nov 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Dabur India Ltd. v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should only be computed on investments that yielded exempt income during the year. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit und...
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026