DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. D GAS SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI
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 held that the rebate under Section 88E is allowable while computing tax liability under Section 115JB. The decision of the CIT(A) was found to be judicious and correct, following previous precedents.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a stockbroker, claimed a rebate under Section 88E of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed tax liability under Section 115JB, which resulted in a higher tax demand. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for rebate adjustment.
What were the issues?
Whether the rebate under Section 88E is to be adjusted while computing tax liability 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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAJENDRA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2008- 09.
The revenue has raised the following grounds:- “
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that rebate available to an assessee u/s 88E of the Act was liable to be adjusted while computing tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act by relying on the decision of A.Y. 2008-09 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, which is not the jurisdictional one, in the case of M/s Horizon Capital Ltd.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that STT paid is not analogous to taxes such as TDS or advance tax or self assessment tax paid under the IT Act, and thus, if tax payable after allowing rebate u/s 88E is less than 10% of its book profit, provision of section 115JB are applicable.
3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground which may be necessary.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 28.08.2008 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.5,69,17,715/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 26.04.2010 determining the total income to the tune of Rs.5,74,77,530/-. The assessee company is a member of Stock Exchange and engaged in the business of stock broking, share trading and investor in shares. During the year under consideration, it was observed that the assessee company was dealing in trading of shares and allowed rebate u/s 88E of the Act of Rs.1,54,26,582/-. After allowance of rebate u/s 88E of the I.T. Act, the net tax payable was determined @ Rs.9,10,959/- under the normal provision of income tax. However, the tax liability of the assessee u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act worked out to the tune of Rs.57,08,045/- (10% of (57548735 + 528892 – 997172) in view of the provision u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee was not under obligation to pay the income tax at least to the extent of 10% of its book profit. Since the assessee failed to comply the said provision, therefore, an amount of Rs.57,08,045/- was assessed to the income of the assessee in view of the provision u/s ITA. No. 153/M/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 115JB of the Act and tax liability was determined to the tune of Rs.64,67,214/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.
ISSUE NO.1 & 2:- 4. Issue No. 1 & 2 are inter-connected therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. Under these issues the revenue has challenged the allowance of claim u/s 88E of the Act in computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record.:-
More judgments on Section 88E
- Gnana Kathir Singarayar, Mumbai vs ITO, MumbaiITA 5503/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed3 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
- Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl CIT RG (1), MumbaiITA 4248/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed9 Nov 2023AY 2007-08
- DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs Icici Bank Ltd, MumbaiITA 4158/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed9 Nov 2023AY 2007-08
- Shivnarayan Nemani Shares & Stock Brokers… vs D.C.I.T. Circle 4(2), MumbaiITA 2522/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2021AY 2008-09
- Magnum Equity Broking Ltd., Mumbai vs ACIT - 4(3), MumbaiITA 5503/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2021AY 2006-07
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026