CONTINENTAL CARRIERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 6(3), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D cannot be added while computing book profits under Section 115JB, as Explanation 2 to Section 115JB does not specifically mention Section 14A.
What were the facts?
The assessee company declared nil taxable income but claimed a loss. The Assessing Officer added back a disallowance of Rs. 24,66,846/- to the book profits under Section 115JB for expenses related to exempt income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance made under Section 14A for exempt income needs to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.789 citing82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY
Aggrieved by the order dated 23/3/2017 in appeal No.335/15-16 of CIT(A)-2 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (“Ld.CIT(A)”), for the Assessment Year: 2013-14, M/s Continental carriers Pvt. Ltd (“the assessee”) filed this appeal stating that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,66,846/-made by the learned Assessing Officer
115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of international freight forward and customhouse agent. For the assessment year 2013-14 they have filed their return of income on 27/9/2013 declaring nil taxable income, but claiming loss of Rs.24,72,462/-. Learned Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had dividend income and long term capital gains exempt under section 10(38) of the Act and matter disallowance of Rs. 24, 66, 846/-while computing the taxable income. Learned Assessing Officer further noticed that the same was not disallowed while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act and stating that no justifiable reply was given by the assessee in that respect, he added it back to the book profits under section 115 JB of the Act.
In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act by the assessee while computing its normal income at the time of filing its return also needs to be added back to its net profit as per profit and loss account so as to arrive at the correct bookable of it under section 115JB of the Act, the only condition being that the disallowance under section 14 A of the Act forms part of the expenses claimed in the profit and loss account. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by such finding of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred this appeal. Only issue argued before us by the Ld. AR is whether the disallowance under section 14 A of the Act So Moto made by the assessee to its normal profits has also to be added to the book profits under section 115 JB of the Act, and basing on the decision of the special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd reported in (2017) 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib.) (SB) it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be added while computing profit as per section 115 JB as Explanation -2 that section does not specifically mentions section 14A of the Act, and therefore, no disallowance can be made under section 14 A of the Act while computing book profits under MAT provisions. Ld. DR does not controvert the decision in the Vireet Investment Private limited (supra).
In Vireet Investment (P) Ltd (supra), the Special Bench dealt with this aspect at length and held that the computation under clause (f) of explanation 1 to section 115 JB (2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. There is no dispute on this proposition. We therefore, while respectfully following the said addition answer the issue in favour of the assessee.
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026