DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EMAMI LIMITED, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had no jurisdiction to make upward adjustments to book profit for international transactions, as these were not specified in Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an upward adjustment to the assessee's book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act for international transactions. The CIT(A) deleted this adjustment, holding that it was not permissible under the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether upward adjustments for international transactions are permissible while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
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.
- Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT657 citing122 Taxmann 562 · 2002 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA
Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY & SH.S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Both these appeals filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28.07.2017 passed by CIT(A)-22, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12.
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) 2. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the AO initially completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the gross total income of Rs.35,19,13,334/- and allowed the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Thereafter, according to AO, the said gross total income is inclusive of upward adjustment as recommended by the TPO in respect of international transaction and passed an order u/s 154 of the Act by holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs.33,80,38,919/- only (35,19,13,334/- - Rs.1,38,74,418/-) u/s 80IC of the Act and added the said upward adjustment in respect of international & 2026/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 & 2011-12) transaction to the book profit of the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. The CIT(A) held that upward adjustment is not specified under any of the clauses in Explanation (1) section 115JB of the Act thereby, adjustment made by the AO is deleted.. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) is reproduced herein below:- 7. “Similarly, on an identical issue the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad "B"- Bench in the case of Berkadia Services India Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3),Hyderabad by their order dated 19th September, 2014, reported in [2014] 50 taxmann.com 455 (Hyderabad - Trib.), adjudicated as follows: 18. As regards the issue involved in ground No.10 relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of TP adjustments, while determining the book profit of the assessee company under S,115JB of the Act, it is observed that the income of the assessee having been finally assessed by the Assessing Officer as per the normal provisions of the Act, this issue is merely of academic nature. Nevertheless, as agreed by the learned representatives of both sides, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562 wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer has limited power of making adjustments to the book profit as declared by the assessee, and the same is restricted only to the additions and reductions as provided in Explanation to S.115JB, Since the adjustments so provided in the Explanation to S.115JB do not include the addition on account of TP adjustments, we respectfully follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) to hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of TP adjustment while determining the book profit of the assessee company under S.115JB of the Act is not sustainable. The same is therefore, deleted and ground No.10 of the assessee's appeal is allowed.
8. Thus, after considering the interpretation of the relevant law as emanating from the ration load down by the Hon'ble apex Court as well as the other Hon'ble lTAT Benches, in my considered view of the matter I find that rectification order passed by the Ld. AO is not sustainable and the adjustment is thus deleted. The appellant gets relief and the Ground is allowed.”
Before us, the Ld.AR supported the order of CIT(A) and referred to para 7 and argued that the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit u/s 154 of the Act. Ld.DR supported the order of AO. On an examination of Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, we find as rightly held by the & 2026/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 & 2011-12)
CIT(A) that there was no clause specified in respect of upward adjustment of international transaction.
Regarding the decision in Berkadia Services India Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT [2014] 50 taxmann.com 455 (Hyd.-Trib.) as relied by the CIT(A) in its order that the CO-ordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal held that when the income having been finally assessed by the AO as per the normal provisions of the Act, the issue in respect of TP adjustment would become academic in nature. We find that the CIT(A) rightly placed reliance on the order of CO- ordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal and as we discussed above, the AO completed assessment under normal provisions of the Act and he has no jurisdiction to add upwards adjustment as recommended by the TPO to the book profit. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue in this regard are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) 6. We find that the facts and circumstances in this case is also identical and similar to the facts and issue raised in . Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the final result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2019.
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 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
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026